/J % ^JL 


- r & ^ . 


u) vx 


NEW JERSEY CONTESTED ELECTION, 

13 5 1 ' : 


V J 

t 


J 

(1 


REPORT 


OP THE 


MINORITY OF THE COMMITTEE OF ELECTIONS 


03V THE 


CONTESTED ELECTION FROM NEW JERSEY, 

I 


TOGETHER WITH THE 


PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THEREON. 


July 16, 1840. 


-e0e- 


WASHINGTON : 

>* * » t \ 

TRINTED RY GALES AND SEATON. 

1840. 


* 












*. 



















































< 


vf 

















• « 
r « • 


•#* 


AUG 17 1907 


D» ofD» 




























REPORT. 


The undersigned, constituting a minority of the Committee of Elections, to which was re¬ 
ferred the New Jersey case, not concurring in the result to which the majority of the committee 
has come, and believing that it sufficiently appears, from the evidence, that Messrs. Charles C. 
Stratton, John P. B. Maxwell, and William Halsted were duly elected members of the 26th 
Cuogress, to the exclusion of Messrs. Joseph Kille, Daniel B. Ryall, and Philemon Dickerson, 
by a majority of the lawful votes of the People of that State, beg leave to submit the subjoin¬ 
ed exposition of their views, to enable this honorable body to form a just estimate of the proceed¬ 
ings of the committee, and of the merits of the case. The undersigned feel great difficulty and 
embarrassment in presenting to the House, within a reasonable compass, such a development of 
the case, and of the action of the committee on the questions arising, as the importance of the 
subject would seem to require. Cn opening the evidence we perceived that the topics of contro¬ 
versy were exceedingly numerous and complicated, and, in course of the investigation, it was 
necessary, sometimes, to recur to provisions of the laws of the United States, sometimes to those 
of New Jersey, and at other times to the principles of the common law, and of general juris¬ 
prudence. With no less than four hundred and ninety cases of controverted votes, and with 
this great diversity of legal principle and statutory provision, applicable to the case, it was to 
be expected that there would be an occasional difference of opinion in the committee as to the 
fact, the law,or both. If nothing but such a difference had marked the deliberations of the 
committee, the undersigned would have remained silent, but the proceedings throughout have 
been of so singular a character and distinguished by such an utter disregard of the plainest 
and best settled principles of law and evidence, and have been so capricious, inconsistent, partial, 
irregular, and unjust,thatthey feel impelled, by a high sense of obligation to the cause of justice 
and truth, to undertake, by a brief induction of facts, to show that the conclusions and judg¬ 
ments of the majority of the committee are wholly unwori by of toe sanction of tins House, anti 
of the confidence of the country. If the testimony adduced be examined in connexion with the 
journal kept by the committee, where are recorded the opinions and votes of the members on all 
the various questions arising in the case, it will appear that the majority, in numerous instances, 
overruled objections taken by Messrs, Aycrigg and his associates .to the legality of votes, on 
the ground that the evidence was inadequate, when, in fact, such evidence was adequate and 
sufficient to convince any reasonable mind ; that the majority insisted upon a much higher meas¬ 
ure of proof to support an objection on one side than was required to sustain a similar objection 
on the other, and Messrs. Aycrigg and his associates often failed with satisfactory evidence, 
when Messrs. Vroom and others prevailed with that which was comparatively light and trivial; 
that the majority applied principles of evidence of statutory construction cr general law in 
such a manner as to defeat the efforts of one side to establish the illegality of votes, and then 
refused, on some frivolous ground of distinction, to apply the same principles to cases arising on 
the other side, when the merits were obviously alike, and that they adopted, and as against one 
of the parties pertinaciously adhered to, certain general rules which were eminently adapted to 
defeat all inquiry into the merits, and to make the whole investigation little better than a mockery 
and a farce, thus rendering the important provision cf the Constituiion that each House shall 
be the judge not merely of the returns and qualifications, but also of the election of its members, 
vain and nugatory. 

The undersigned, before they advert to the cases by which they can, as they believe, evince 
the juslice of these remarks, wrnuld invite the attention of the House to the laws of New Jersey 
on the qualifications necessary to the exercise of the elective franchise. The people of that 
State have not a Constitution in the ordinary acceptation of the term, but they live under a sys¬ 
tem of government ordained by a Colonial Legislature, which has the force and effect of a Con¬ 
stitution^ and is intended in some of its provisions to be inviolate, as the members of the Gener¬ 
al Assembly are obliged at the outset of every session to swear that they will not vote to change 
such provisions, of which that relating to the elective franchise is not one. 

By the Constitution or Ordinance a considerable property qualification was originally made 
indispensable, but this lias been subsequently modified by legislative enactment. 

The undersigned have felt considerable doubt and difficulty in arriving at the true intent and 
meaning of the^laws of New Jersey on this subject on account of their uncertainty, yet, taking 
into consideration the very general construction given in that State to the doubtful clauses, and 



4 


avoring so far as may be the policy of extending this invaluable right—a policy which 1 ku 3 
manifestly received the sanction of the good people of New Jersey—they are satisfied that it 
was intended by the law-makers of that State that the franchise should be exercised by all white 
male citizens of the United States who have attained twenty-one years of age, who reside in 
the township where they offer to vote, and have resided in the county one year next pre¬ 
ceding, and paid a tax, or been assessed in conformity to the laws of the State. It is required 
that the person voting should be a free white male citizen of the United States, and this made it 
necessary for the committee in a very numerous class of cases to examine the naturalization 
laws of the United States to determine what evidence of alienage or naturalization is admissi¬ 
ble, competent, and sufficient, and whether the proceedings taken in certain cases with a view 
to naturalization were valid, and conferred the light of citizenship. It is required also that 
the voters should be one and twenty years of age, and this involved questions of fact wheth¬ 
er certain persons whose votes were challenged as illegal, were or were not of that agojiat the 
October election in 1838. It is required that he should reside in the township at the election, 
and in the county during the year preceding, and this rendered it our duty to advert to the law 
of domicil, ami to determine what did and what did not amount to a change of residence under 
almost every variety of circumstances; and, finally, it is required that the. voters either should 
have paid a tax or been assessed ; and this often involved the committee in doubt and perplexity 
touching the terms of a very incoherent law in ascertaining when the tax must have been 
paid, and how the party should have been assessed, and whether pauperism in New Jersey 
operates to exclude a person from the elective franchise, and, if so, when and under what cir¬ 
cumstances. Besides these, a great variety of incidental questions arose, some of which weio 
referable to the ordinary principles of law and evidence, and others to the peculiar institutions 
of New Jersey, but the undersigned have not time to advert to them in any other than this 
general form. 

We submit this statement touching the extent, variety, and complication of the questions 
comprised in this controversy, that the House may appreciate the obligation which the committee 
were under to ascertain the true principles applicable to each head of inquiry, and to apply such 
principles, when ascertained, with scrupulous fidelity to all cases as they arose, irrespective of par¬ 
ties, and with a view to administer even-handed and exact justice to all concerned. It is with 
much regret that the undersigned find themselves coustrained to say. (which they do with¬ 
out impeaching the motives of their associates constituting the majority of the committee,) 
that such an administration of even-handed justice is not to be found in .the record; on the 
contrary, they perceive in it nothing but a confused medley of adjudication, little better than a 
chaos of principles, with all the jarring elements of inconsistency united to defeat the requisi¬ 
tions of legal rights and obvious truths. To go into all the particulars by which the propriety 
of these suggestions can be sustained is wholly impossible; but the undersigned will endeavor 
to illustrate their views by a series of sample cases, and will thus show that any thing else may 
be found in these anomalous and strange proceedings than a sound, impartial, and faithful ad¬ 
ministration of justice. 

To enable the House to appreciate the action of the committee on the cases to which we are 
about to refer, we would remark that it was conceded by all the members that the reception of a 
vote by the election officers raised a presumption in favor of the legality of such vote. Early in 
our deliberations, we adopted a resolution declarative of this principle, the justice and propriety 
of which must be apparent to all. But, very soon after we commenced scrutinizing the votes, 
we perceived that there was a radical difference of opinion in the committee touching the use 
which should be made of this presumption. 

The undersigned are pcrs.uaded that the only effect which can be given to the reception of a 
vote at the polls is to throw the burden of proof on the party objecting to its legality; but the 
majority seemed disposed to carry the principle much further, and to convert the presumption into 
“ a swift witness” in favor of the opposite party. If a chredible witness was adduced who proved 
the fact of illegality by his positive oath, the majority would confront such witness with the 
presumption, and would give it all the efficacy appertaining to testimony under oath, and, thus 
balancing the oath of the living witness against the presumption, they would come to the con¬ 
clusion that nothing was proved. Nay, more; the majority, strange as it may seem, held that 
the presumption was so strong that it imposed on the party excepting to a vote the burden of 
proving a negative. When Messrs. Aycrigg and others objected to a vote on the ground of 
alienage, they were required to prove not merely that the voter was an alien born, but that he had 
not been naturalized—a task which, in many cases, is wholly impracticable. 

The undersigned cannot omit noticing one curious circumstance, and that is, that this pre¬ 
sumption seldom visited the committee-room except when one of these parties was endeavoring 
to establish the illegality of votes. If it appeared at all when the other party was making the same 
effort, the undersigned must say they were scarcely conscious of its presence. Why this princi¬ 
ple should “ wax and wane” in this singular manner we acknowledge ourselves unable to deter¬ 
mine, .and we must refer the solution of the phenomenon to more philosophical minds. But the 
undersigned will recur to these topics hereafter. They now proceed to the illustrations; and, 
first, they invite the attention of the House to the cases of John McConaghv and Charles T 
Pool, the first objected to by Messrs. Aycrigg and others, and the last by their competitors, and" 
both on the ground of alienage. 


5 


John McConaghy, being sworn, saith : That he voted on the last day of the election in the 
township of Amweli, at the Congressional election held at the house of Nathan Risley, in 
the village of Larnbertsville, in said township, in the year 1838; thinks it was in the month of 
October; does not recollect the day of the month. I voted the democratic ticket; it was called 
the Van Buren ticket; I received a Whig ticket of Edward Runt; I did not like it; I received 
another of Mr. Samuel Carhart; said ticket was the Van Buren democratic ticket; said ticket 
was for Members of Congress; I put said ticket in the ballot-box ; I was born imthe north of 
Ireland, in the kingdom of Great Britain; I arrived in this country on the 16th day of July, A. 
D. 1801; 1 was about sixteen years old; I never had any naturalization papers in the State of 
New Jersey ; 1 have voted 11 years in New Jersey ; 1 was never called upon for any naturaliza¬ 
tion papers in New Jersey ; 1 never had any at any time when I voted in New Jersey; I had not 
any at the time that I refer to in this deposition, (meaning the year 1838,) when I voted lor 
Members of Congress; I am fifty-four years old; 1 can read ; the ticket which 1 voted at the 
time referred to in this deposition had on it the names of the Van Buren candidates for Congress. 

his 

JOHN X McCONAGHY. 
mark. 

In the face of such testimony as this, the committee refused to deduct the vote of Mr. Mc¬ 
Conaghy from the poll of Messrs. Vroom and others. He did not pretend that he had been 
naturalized—on the contrary,.swore substantially that he had not been: no other construction 
can be given to his evidence. We ask the House to contrast this case with that of Charles T. 
Pool, which is as follows : 

Charles T. Pool, sworn, saith : I voted at the Congrestional election in the township of 
Mansfield, Warren county, New Jersey, in the year 1838 ; I am rot a native born citizen ot the 
United States of America; 1 was not naturalized myself at that time, except that I considered 
myself naturalized by coming here when an infant., and my father being naturalized, I believe ; 
I believe my father was naturalized, because I recollect, when I was young, of hearing him 
talk about his being naturalized ; whether he had been, or was to be, 1 do not recollect. In the 
next place, I know of his voting a number of years, and never heard any objection to it; I 
never saw him vote, to my knowledge; he died when 1 was about eighteen years of age; I 
never saw his naturalization papers; I am not positive whether he said he had been naturalized 
or was to be; I voted a Whig Congressional ticket in the fall of 1838, in this township. 

And being c^oss-examined, saith : I know of my father’s voting by hearing him speak of it; 
I have heard him say he voted the democratic ticket; I know of his going to the polls for the 
purpose of voting; this was when the parties ran high something like the years 1806, ’7, and ’8; 
I think there was an embargo at the time; I recollect hearing my father read about it in the 
papers ; I do not recollect my father’s serving on juries; he never was a free-holder in the county, 
I believe; he died in the year 1813, to the best of my recollection ; his name was Cyrus John 
Pool. 

And being called again, in chief, saith : I was five years of age when I came to this country. 

CHARLES T. POOL. 

In this case the committee decided the vote of Pool to be an unlawful vote, and deducted it 
from the poll of Messrs. Aycrigg and others. It thus appears that McConaghy was declared a 
citizen against his own oath that he was and remained an alien. And Pool was determined to 
be an alien upon the mere fact that he was born such, with very good grounds for believing 
that he had acquired the rights of citizenship through the naturalization of his father. 

The undersigned are at a loss to conceive of any T language that will adequately express their 
sense of the flagrant injustice and inconsistency of these decisions. 

The next cases to which the undersigned would invite the attention of the House are those of 
Candor Carr, whose vote was objected to by Messrs. Aycrigg and his associates on the ground 
of alienage, and of Jas. B. Bolton, objected to by Messrs. Vroom and others for the same reason ; 
in respect to which the committee, with the facts substantially the same, came to directly oppo¬ 
site results. 

Candor Carr voted the Administration ticket in the township of Hardiston, in the county of 
Sussex, at the Congressional election in 1838. His vote was objected to by Messrs. Aycrigg 
and others on the ground of alienage. He was summoned as a witness, and appeared before 
the magistrate, but, on the oath bemg tendered to him, he refused to be sworn or to testify his 
•knowledge of the facts in the case. 

Samuel M. McPeek testified that he knew Candor Carr; had heard him say that ne came from 
Ireland ; that he was not naturalized in New York when he first cam6 to that city; did no*, say 
how long after, but it was soon after. It was in 1838, sometime before the election, that witness 
heard him say that he had been naturalized. It appears from the evidence that, in that town¬ 
ship, the election officers held that ahens or unnaturalized foreigners were, according to 'he law^ 
of New Jersey, entitled to vote—a decision which it is admitted on all hands was palpably erro¬ 
neous. One would suppose that it would be difficult to raise a presumption in favor of a vote 
from the more reception of it by election officers under such circumstances, but the majority, 
notwithstanding the determination of the board to admit the votes ot aliens, and notwit nstanding 
the voter stood obstinately mule when his right was in question, and when he could have vindi¬ 
cated that right by a breath, if it had been susceptible of vindication, held that the mere admission 
of the vote at the polls proved that the voter was no alien; or, in other werus, they gravely con- 


6 


eluded from such premises that he had been naturalized ; they overruled the objection of Messrs, 
Aycrigg and others, and held the votetohe a lawful one. 

We submit to the Bouse whether, under the circumstances, we use too strong language in pro¬ 
nouncing this result a judicial perversion. But the enormity of the decision cannot be under¬ 
stood till we contrast it with a case to which we now ask the attention of the House. 

James B Bolton voted the Opposition ticket in the township of FrankforJ, in the same county 
and at the same election. His vote was objected to by Messrs. Vroom and others for the same 
reason ; he was duly summoned by them and refused to appear as a witness. Nathaniel Roe 
proves that he knows Bolton ; that he is a foreigner; from his acquaintance with him, he supposes 
him to be a foreigner; he has told the witness once and since the election that be had been 
naturalized ; has known him five or six years; his vote was not objected to, and nothing was said 
at that election about foreigners voting. Samuel Price piovps a conversation between himself and 
Bolton in substance as follows : I told him that it he had been naturalized I considered him a 
legal voter in the township; he said he had been naturalized in Albany, in the State of New 
York. I then told him he had 'better come clown and state the fact, and it would make him a 
legal voter under the old law'; that the new iaw would require him to produce his papers ; that 
he had better testify to the fact and then send to Albany to get his papers, and that would make 
him a legal voter next fall; he said it would not cost more to be naturalized again than to get the 
certificate from Albany; this the witness contradicted, and other conversation followed which 
need not be repeated. The witnes; adds: I then told him that I suspected for a long time that 
he had never been naturalized, from loose expressions that I had heard him make at different 
times on that subject. Mrs. Buchanan, who was present, then said : I Suppose you are now satis¬ 
fied that he has never been naturalized; I replied that I was. This was said in his presence, to 
which he made no remarks in reply; it appeared from the evidence that Bolton had voted five or 
six times before without any objection being made; also the conversation detailed by Price took 
place when the subpoena was served on Belton, he, Price, acting as an officer for that purpose. 

The declaration, therefore, was made by Bolton pending the controversy, and was on that account, 
in the opinion of the committee, wholly inadmissible. 

It would be of dangerous consequence to receive and give effect to conversations had under 
such circumstances in a case of contested elections. The House can hardly fail to be impres¬ 
sed with the wonderful coincidence between these cases. In both the voters were foreigners— 
in both they affirmed that they had been naturalized—in both they refused to be sworn or dis- i 
dose the facts—and in both they stood mute when their right was called in question. There 
are strong circumstances in favor of the vote of Bolton which do not exist in the case of Carr : 
one is, that the authorities of Frankford, unlike those of Haruiston, did not intentionally admit 
alien votes contrary to law; so that the vote of Bolton was sustained by whatever of presump¬ 
tion there may be resulting from its presentation and admission at the polls. And another is, 
that Carr affirmed that he was naturalized at a time when he could not have been by the law's 
of the land, that is to say, when he first came into New York from Ireland ; whereas no such 
objection exists in the case of Bolton; and yet the majority held, after sustaining the vote of 
Carr, that the vote of Bolton was an unlawful vote. By what process ot reasoning they 
arrived at such a conclusion the undersigned are at a loss to understand—they are reluctant to 
believe that it was because Carr voted the Administration, and Bolton the Opposition ticket. 

The undersigned will now advert to two very remarkable cases, and which will serve better 
perhaps than any other to characterize the proceedings of the committee. They are as follows: 

Philip Schetter voted the Whig ticket at the township of Millville, in the county of Cumber¬ 
land, at the same election. Messrs. Vroom and others objected to his vote on the same ground ; 
his own testimony was produced to sustain the objection. He testified that he was a native of 
Germany, that he was naturalized at the time he voted in 1833, and would have sworn to it at 
that time. He thinks he stated that he had been naturalized when he offered to vote, but is not 
certain. Some of the judges had been told of it before. Was naturalized in Tennessee in 
1832. Did not produce any evidence of his naturalization—none was called for. tie had not 
then, nor has he now, any evidence of the fact, but has sent his papers to Germany in order to 
save the necessity of procuring a substitute in the army. It appears that, he had formerly voted 
at other places besides Millville. There was more testimony adduced, but we have stated all 
that we deem material. The committee sustained the objection, anddeducted the vote from the 
poll of Messrs. Aycrigg and others. 

Archibald McCambridge voted the Administration ticket at the same township and the 
same election, and Messrs. Aycrigg and others objected to his vote on the same grounds. The 
voter himself was examined as a witness, and after swearing that he is a native of Ireland, 
testifies as follows: “ I have been naturalized; I was naturalized at Mount Holly; I had been 
in Millville twice or three times before I was naturalized; don’t recollect the year I was natura¬ 
lized ; I think it was in 1821 or 1822, if I remember right; it was in the fall or winter before I 
broke my thigh.” Mount Holly is the countv seat of the county of Burlington, and when the 
witness says he was naturalized in Mount Holly, he doubtless means to be understood to 
swear that he was naturalized before some one of the courts held there. Messrs. Aycrisrg and 
others produced the certificate of the clerk of that county, who has the custody of all its 
judicial records, stating that he had searched the same, and that he could find no record or 
paper appertaining to the naturalization of the witness. In the face of this fact, the committee 
overruled the objection, and held the vote to be a lawful vote. To enable the House to appre- 


i 


7 


ciate these cases, we would observe that the committee have often held that they would not require 
record eyioence of naturalization, but would act on secondary proof of that fact—such as the 
oath ot the voter, or other credible evidence. The House will hardly fail to notice how much 
stronger the case of Schetter is in favor of the voter, than that of McCnmbridge. Jn both 
they were foreigners, and in both they positively swore that they had been naturalized. And 
m tavor ot both the presumption existed, which arises from the reception of their votes at the polls: 
but toe testimony of the latter was flatly contradicted by the certificate of the clerk of Burlington 
county, and yet t.*e committee held the vote cast by Schetter for the Whig candidates to be 
an unlawful vote, and the vote cast by McCambridge for their opponents to be a lawful vote. 

i-dany other cases, equally significant, might be cited under the head of alienage, but we have 
neither time nor space to advert to them. 

The undersigned will next invite the attention of the House to the contrast exhibited by the 
receru in the disposition of the cases objected to on the ground of non-age , or infancy. 

Augustus Moore voted in the township of Warren, county of Somerset, at the same congres¬ 
sional election.; he voted the Administration ticket. Aycrigg and others objected to his vote or 


, 1 , . ----*-- w.. V. w»»V. “. -*-*-7 uwu Ul'jCVlCU iu Ills v u i c on 

. e gionnu ol infancy, and proved by the testimony oi John Mucktl that he had a conversa¬ 
tion with Moore in the tall of 183S, before the election, and he told him he was not old enough 
to vote. W. Corey look part in the conversation, and he asked him whether he (Moore) was 
old enough to vote 'l Mr. Moore said he was not old enough to vote that year; no testimony 
■w as produced in opposition to this, so that the case stood upon a declaration of the voter against 
ins right, made at a time when he had no motive to violate the truth, and yet the majority held 
the proof inadequate on the ground of hearsay. Contrary to what the undersigned believe to be 
tn w rU ° P r * nc b D '®> they overruled the objection and decided that the vote was a lawful vote. 

William Kerris voted at the township of Pequannock, in the county of Morris, at the same 
( lection ; he voted the IrVhig ticket; his vote was objected to by Messrs. Vroom and others, on 
tne same ground; they proved by Benjamin Crane that he had been acquainted with Kerris from 
a child ; witness understood him that he would be twenty-one years old in the summer of 1839. 
Witness did business for him, and he could not sell his lands because he was not of age; that 
he is about of ago now, (deposition taken March 20, 1840.) Wm. Kerris told him so at the 
time. . 1 his was the whole proof: the mere declaration of the voter made out of court more 
than six months after the election, in substance that he was not of age at the October election of 
1838; yet the majority of.the committee sustained the objection of Messrs. Vroom and others 
in the teeth of their decision in Moore’s case, and held the vote of Kerris to be an unlawful vote. 

The case of Samuel A. Price, who voted the Administration ticket at Frankford, in the county 
of Sussex, at the same election, and whose vote was objected to by Messrs. Aycrigg and others, 
on the ground ot non-age, will be found to conflict also with that of Augustus Moore, (vide print¬ 
ed evidence, pages 198, 199, 200, 1,2, 4, and 5.) It is in fact a much stronger case, for Price 
refused to appear when summoned and state his age; but the committee refused to deduct his 
vote from the poll of Messrs. Vroom and others. It thus appears that a statement of a voter as 
to his age is good and sufficient for one of the parties, but is not so in favor of the other. We 
shall leave the majority to assign the reason, if any exists, for such a distinction. 

, T* 1 ® undersigned would observe that very numerous cases were submitted to the committee of 
objections to votes on the ground of non-residence. The laws of New Jersey require that the 
voter should have resided in the county one year previous to, and in the township where he 
votes at the time of election. No fixed period of residence in the township is necessary—it is 
sufficient if the voter be actually domiciled there at the election, but the residence in the county 
must have been one year next preceding the election, and the question of non-residence submitted 
to the committee appertained principally to the latter species of residence. The principles appli¬ 
cable to the subject are well settled; the most important of which we cite from Judge Story’s able and 
learned treatise on the Conflict of Laws, from page 44 to 47. They are as follows : “The place of birth 
of a person is considered as his domicil, if it is at the time of his birth the domicil of his parents.” 

1 Prima facie where a person lives i3 taken to be his domicil, until other facts establish the contra¬ 
ry* “ The place where a married man’s family reside is generally to be deemed his domicil, and if a 
married man has his family fixed in one place and he does his business in another, the former is consider¬ 
ed the place of his domicil.” “If a married man has two places of residence at different times of the 
year, that will be esteemed his domicil which he himself selects or describes to be his home, or which 
appears to be the centre of his affairs, or where he votes or exercises the rights and duties of a citizen.” 

“ The mere intention to acquire a new domicil, without the fact of removal, avails nothing ; neither dose 
the fact of removal without the intention; both must concur.” “A domicil once acquired remains until 
a new one is acquired,” which is so “ when a person actually removes to another place with an intention 
of remaining there for any indefinite period of time.” 

These are the principles, but the tindetsigned insist that the majority have not applied them properly 
to the cases submitted, and their decisions are irreconcilable and contradictory, and this they propose to 
illustrate as follows : 

Thomas A.- Drake voted in the township of Warren, in the county of Somerset, at the Congres¬ 
sional election in 1838 ; he voted the Administration ticket; Messrs. Aycrigg and others objected to his 
vote on the ground that he had not resided in the county one entire year next preceding the election. 
Jeremiah Drake, the father of Thomas A. swore that his son went to Rahway on tbs 5th day of Octo¬ 
ber, 1838; he went there to work and live; his wife was there at the time; he married at Rahway, 
in the count)' of Essex ; he made his home there at that time, and has continued to live there ever 
since. The witness afterwards adds, “when Thomas wentaway from my house on the 5th of October, 
1838, he went then (to Rahway) to live, and has remained there ever since, and has never had a 


8 


home in Warren township since, that I know of.” Nothing was shown in opposition to this evidence, 
which we deem proof positive of a change of residence from Somerset to Essex county, anterior to the 
election in ; 1838, which took place on the 9th and 10th days of October of that year. The objection of 
Messrs. Aycrigg and others was overruled. 

Marshall Conant voted in the same township at the same election. His vole was objected to for non¬ 
residence. John D. Putnam was the only witness called, who proves that Marshall Conant liyed at 
Noah Drake’s that season; that he moved from Drake’s between the first and middle of September, 
1838 ; took away a large chest and small trunk, and said he was going to reside at Green Village, in 
the county of fMorris, to teach a school and tend store there, (employments that would seem to be rather 
incompatible.) The witness does not know when he went, except by what he said ; did not see him go 
to Morris county, anddid not know of his returning to reside at Drake’s till after the election. It appears 
by the evidence that Conant was in the neighborhood at the time the testimony was taken, and no 
attempt made to obtain his knowledge of the facts. On this evidence, infinitely more feeble and lame 
than that adduced in the case of S. A. Drake, the committee rejected the vote of Conant. We ask 
the House to contrast the two cases. 

In the first place, Drake went to his wife and family. Conant did not. Drake became a permanent 
resident of the place to which he went. Conant did not; he appears to have returned immediately 
after the election, thus evincing that he did not intend to change his residet ce. And in Drake’s case, 
his father swears positively that his son did change his residence, and did go to Rahway to reside on 
the 5th of October; but no such testimony is given in Conant’s case ; and yet the committee come to 
directly opposite results in the two cases—that the first was a lawful and the last an unlawful vote. 
It is scarcely necessary, after this statement, to inform the House that Marshall Conant voted the Whig 
ticket—a fact to which we are obliged to recur much too often in giving an exposition of the proceed¬ 
ings of the committee. 

Robert Greenleaf voted at South Amboy, in the county of Middlesex, at the same election. He voted 
the Administration ticket. Messrs. Aycrigg and others objected to his vote on the ground of non-resi¬ 
dence. John B. Applegate proves that Greenleaf olfered to vote at the election in 1838, and he chal¬ 
lenged his vote, on the ground that he had not lived long enough in the county. He told the judges that 
he had moved his family into the county of Middlesex only a few days before the first day of April, 
1838, which he admitted to be true. John Seward proves that his family lived in Paterson, as he heard 
him say; did not know that he moved there directly from Paterson; they might have been in New 
York ; knows that his family came to South Amboy in the steamboat, and helped him remove his goods 
from the boat; he moved into Conologue’s house, who lived the next door to the witness. Thomas 
Applegate proves that Greenleaf moved his family into the county of Middlesex in the spring of 1838, 
from the county of Bergen, as he thought. He worked at South Amboy the fall before, but at what time 
the witness does not recollect. Pre.vious to the spring of 1838, R. Greenleaf left South Amboy every 
two or three months, as witness expected to go to see his family ; has heard him say previous to the 
spring of 1833 that his family lived in the county of Bergen. This, in the judgment of the undersigned, 
is, on indisputable principles, a perfectly cltar case of non-residence at South Amboy, and yet the 
committee overruled the objection, and the held vote to be a lawful vote. 

John Teats voted in the township of Hardwick, in the county of Warren, at the same election. He 
voted the Opposition ticket. Messrs. Vroom and others objected to the vote on the ground that he did 
not reside in the township at the election, though it was admitted that he had resided in the county 
the year preceding. John L, Armstrong proves that his wife and family resided at Columbia, in the to 
township of Knolton, in that county, in the fall of 1838, at the time of the Congressional election of that 
year. Witness could not tell how long he had worked for him previous to the election; thinks it was 
more than one week, but not over two; he remained with the witness after the election till cold 
weather; he hired him, and calculated to keep him longer, but did not; did not hire him for any length 
of time, bat expected to keep him a year. The committee held properly that the residence of Teats 
was with his family at Columbia, and that he could not vote at Hardwick. They therefore deducted 
liis vote from the poll of Messrs. Aycrigg and bis associates; but the decision of the committee in Green- 
leaf’s case conflicts directly with that of Teats. In both cases the electors were married men, and in 
both they had families residing in one place while they were laboring in another; and yet in one case 
the committee held that the elector could vote in the place where he was at work, and in the other 
case that, he could not. 

Wm. Helm voted at Newton, in the county of Sussex, at the same election; he voted the Adminis¬ 
tration ticket. This vote was objected toby Messrs. Aycrigg and others, on the ground of non-residence. 

John S. Brodrick proves that he knew Helm; never knew him till August or September before the 
election; did not know how long he had lived in the county ; he said he came from the east side of the 
North river, in the State of New York, when he came here; did not know when he came from that 
State; a laboring man, whose principal business was to make stone fence, and was living in the neigh¬ 
borhood of Lafayette at, the time of the election. Witness does not know where he is now. John B. 
Gustin proves that he first saw Helm in the spring of 1838 at Lafayette ; hired him to work for him iri 
September following ; he then told witness he came from Columbia county, in the State of New York ; 
he told me so when he came to Lafayette in the spring; he had two bundles with him, and a bag, and 
appeared as if he had been travelling when witness first saw him. He adds that Helm did not tell him 
how long he had been in the county; he was laying stone fence about the neighborhood ; and the wit¬ 
ness understood that he had gone back to the State of New York. Upon this state of the facts the com¬ 
mittee overruled the objections of Messrs. Aycrigg and others, and held the vote to have been a lawful 
vote. 

Charles P. Marks voted the opposite ticket at Elizabethtown, in the county of Essex, at the same elec¬ 
tion. His vote was objected to by Messrs. Vroom and his associates, for the same reason. To sustain 
the objection, the testimony of a Mr. Hatfield is introduced, who swears that he knows Marks • he follows 
the business of a travelling merchant or pedlar; he is from Connecticut; a. single man ;’prior to the 
spring of 1838, he left, the employ of Keilogand Halsey, at Elizabethtown, and purchased a wagon of the 
deponenl ; went to Paterson, got a load there, and peddled for some one in Paterson, and he never re- 


0 


turned here to make it his residence. In opposition to this, M. W. Halsey proves that Marks was in 
the employ of Kellog & Halsey, of which firm the witness was a member ; his business, from 1835 to 1838, 
was peddling goods for Kellog & Halsey, with a one-horse wagon, through the country ; his washing, 
making and mending clothes, was done at Elizabethtown from 1835 to February, 1838; after that time he 
ceased to be in the employ of the firm. Hut the witness swears positively that Marks had his washing, 
mending and making c lothes, done at Elizabethtown, and made his home at the house of the deponent 
up to 1839, and to the spring of 1839, as lie thinks. Notwithstanding this evidence, the majority of the 
committee held that Marks was not a resident of Elizabethtown at the election of 1833, and deducted his 
vote from the poll of Messrs. Aycrigg and others. 

W e confidently submit that the evidence in favor of the legality of the vote of Marks is much stronger 
than that adduced to sustain the vote of Helm; indeed, there are some very significant circumstances 
against the vote of the latter: his employment, that of making stone-wall, rentiers it improbable that 
he should have been in Sussex in the winter of 37-’8, when his home was in the State of New York, 
and his appearance, when first seen by Mr. Gusten, being that of a person who had been travelling, is a 
sufficient intimation of the truth. He had just then arrived from the county of Columbia, in the State of 
New York ; but nosuch facts existed in the case of Marks, and yet the committee held the one, sustained 
by feeble, and at best doubtful, proof, tc be a lawful vote, and the other, in opposition to positive evidence, 
to he an unlawful vote. 

Charles Swallow offered to vote the Whig ticket in the township of Delaware, in the county of Hun¬ 
terdon, at the same election. His vote was rejected by the election officers on the ground of non-,resi- 
dence. Messrs. Aycrigg and others nowclaim that his vote was a lawful vote in Delaware, and should 
be added to their poll. It appears from the evidence of Swallow tint he was a native of that township, 
was a single man, his father lived there ; he had been employed on canals and railroads in various parts 
of the country for a number of years ; but he says “ I always considered my father’s house my home. 
I always considered the jobs I was doing as temporary jobs. I had a horse a part of the time atmy father’s 
when 1 was absent. I have uever been away except when engaged on public works. I always called my 
father s house my home, for when I 'was out of employment I always went there.” The witness goes 
into detail as to his various engagements from 1833 to the fall of 1837, showing that as soon as he. got 
through one engagement he would return to his father’s, staying weeks and mouths at a time, till he was 
re-engaged. He finally returned in the fall of 1837, about two weeks after the election. He has re¬ 
mained at Delaware, residing at his father’s, ever since. It should be borne in mind that Delaware was 
the native residence or domicil of the voter, and it is a settled rule that a domieii once gained, either by 
birth or otherwise, is never lost till another is acquired, it is difficult to conceive how Swallow could 
have acquired a domicil all along the canals and railroads which he constructed, but the committee held 
the vote to be an unlawful vote. We ask the House to contrast this case with the following. 

William Baker voted the Administration ticket in the township and county of Burlington, at the same 
election. Messrs. Aycrigg and others objected to his vote on the ground of non-residence, it appearing 
from the testimony of William R. Allen that he was a'travelling journeyman shoemaker, going with his 
kit from place to place, getting work as he could. The first we know of him he resided at Baltimore ; 
from thence he went to Philadelphia, and appeared atBuilington in May, 1836 ; remained till the winter 
following ; went to New York, and in a few weeks returned to Burlington ; remained till August, 1837, 
and then went to Philadelphia and remained till February, 1838,. then returned again to Burlington and 
remained until after the election, and left, finally, the winter after. The witness says : “ I saw him du¬ 
ring the time he was in Philadelphia. I visited the house where he boarded in Philadelphia at least 
twice. I saw him at work in Philadelphia in the shop. I know, positively, that he was residing in Phil¬ 
adelphia at that time. He was ence in Burlington, on a visit, during that time ; this was about Christmas, 
1837. From my own knowledge I do not know that he left any thing in Burlington when he left in August, 
1837.” It appears that when Baker offered to vote he said that when he went to Philadelphia he in¬ 
tended to return to Burlington, but this was a mere pretence to get in his vote. His employment and 
manner of life prove, conclusively, that his residence could only be where he happened to be at work. 
But the majority of the committee thought otherwise, and decided his vote was a lawful vote—or, in 
other words, Charles Swallow lost his birth-right—his residence in the place of his nativity, by going 
abroad to superintend public works ; but William Baker could lose nothing, though traversing all 
paxts of the country, and leading a very unsettled life. Perhaps the majority of the committee can ex¬ 
plain why they made such a distinction between the two cases. 

But not only have the majority been inconsistent in their deductions of fact, but they have been equally 
so in the application of the rules of evidence to the cases before them ; or, in other words, evidence 
which they held to be good and sufficient when offered by one of the parties, fora specified purpose, they 
hold to be incompetent and inadmissible when offered by the other, for the same purpose. This the un¬ 
dersigned will illustrate as follows : 

Ira Baldwin voted the Administration ticket at Caldwell, in the county of Essex, at the same election ; 
Messrs. Aycrigg and others objected to his vote on the ground of non-residence. Peter Keerstead, a wit¬ 
ness in behalf of Messrs. Aycrigg and others, proves that Baldwin told him that, “he had not been in 
the place long enough by a month to make him a legal voter; that he had been absent a month, and that 
he got in his vote by making them believe it was a Whig ticket, otherwise he would not have succeed¬ 
ed.” William G. Crane, a witness adduced also by the same party, pimves that Baldwin told him 
that “ he was not entitled to vote ; he lacked a month, or near that, to make him a legal voter ;” so that 
M essrs. Aycrigg and others proved by two witnesses an express declai-ation by the voter that he had 
not resided the requisite period in the county ; but the committee overruled the objection, on the ground 
that the evidence was mere h&civsay t and they held that some other proof should be given of the non¬ 
residence of Baldwin than his declaration ; and, therefore, they refused to deduct his vote from the 
poll of Messrs. Vroom and others. But this rule only lasted till the committee reached the case of 

Jerome B. Pratt, who voted the Whig ticket at the township of West Milford, in the county of Passaic, 
at the same election. Hi 3 vote was objected to by Messrs. Vroom and others on the ground of non-resi¬ 
dence. The deposition of Samuel S. Gregory was produced, which proved that Pratt told him he 
had not resided in the county of Passaic one entire year previous to the election; had resided in New 


10 


Jersey more than one whole year altogether, but had resided out of the State within the last year pre¬ 
ceding the election; lie inquired of the witness as to the law on elections ; witness then informed him 
that a voter was required to reside within the county one whole year previous to the election to entitle 
him to vote ; Pratt then said, if that was the case, he supposed that he was not a legal voter, as he had 
resided out of the State within the last year, and had lie known the law he would not have voted. 
Such, in substance, was the evidence; it was nothing but trie declaration of the voter as to his right. 
The committee held the evidence to be competent, and deducted the controverted vote from the poll of 
Messrs. Aycrigg and others. A similar decision was made by the committee in the case of John Mc- 
Manniman (vide, printed report of evidence, folio 126,)by which Messrs. Vroom and others proved the il¬ 
legality of a vote ; so that it would seem that the admission of voters is good in favor of one of the par¬ 
ties to establish non-residence, but not good for the same purpose in favor of the other. Many other 
cases of an incongruous application of the rules of evidence might be referred to, but the purpose of the 
undersigned will be sufficiently answered by citing the above us examples. 

We desire next to invite the attention of the House to cases in which the parties respectively objected 
to votes on the ground of pauperism, or for the reason that the voters whose right was questioned 
had neither paid a tax nor been assessed iri conformity to the laws of the State. And here, if we 
mistake not, we shall find the same irregularity and inconsistency which pervades other branches of this 
investigation. 

According to the Constitution or colonial ordinance before referred to, the possession of £-50 clear 
estate was necessary to the exercise of the elective franchise, but this has been modified by subsequent 


enactments, as follows : (Revised Laws, 71L) 

“Sec. 5. Every person who shall in other respects be entitled to a vote, and who shall have paid a tax 
for the use of the county or the State, and whose name shall be enrolled on any duplicate list of the last 
State or county tax, shall be adjudged by the officers conducting the election to be worth £50 money 
aforesaid clear estate. 

“Sec. 6. That no person shall hereafter be deemed by the officers conducting the election to be a 
qualified voter who has not either paid a tax, or whose name is not enrolled on the duplicate as afore¬ 
said, except in case of persons removing from one township wherein they have paid a tax to another 
township, in the same county, or of persons who have been inadvertently overlooked by the assessor, in 
either of which cases such persons claiming a vote, and being in other respects qualified, shall be ad¬ 
mitted ; and in the case of persons who have been inadvertently overlooked by the assessor as aforesaid, 
their names shall be immediately entered on the tax list.” 

The undersigned have felt much embarrassment in giving a construction to.these sections, and they 
cannot but feci much surprise that the good people of New Jersey should have suifered the invaluable 
right of suffrage to be involved in all the perplexity and doubt of obscure and contradictory phraseol¬ 
ogy. But on full consideration they are disposed to give the sections a construction conforming to what 
they understand to be the practice of the State, and to hold that if a person has either paid a tax, or has 
had his name enrolled on any duplicate list of the last State or county tax, he is entitled to the elective- 
franchise, as be is, also, in the excepted cases specified in the last section. 

It is usual in New Jersey for a person whose name has not been enrolled, and who desires to exercise 
the elective franchise, to appear at the polls and to demand the enrolment of Ins name, which is al¬ 
ways done under the idea that it has been “inadvertently overlooked” by the assessor; and thus, by 
the payment of a trifling tax, the elective franchise is put wthin the reach of every citizen of New Jer¬ 
sey. But it would obviously be improper to enrol a pauper. It cannot be supposed that the name of 
such person was “inadvertently overlooked;” and it would be absurd to call on a man to pay taxes 
who cannot do so, and if he could, to whom the money would be forthwith returned for his support. 
Hence we deem it settled that paupers cannot vote in New Jersey. This brief exposition of the laws of 
that State will enable us to contrast some of the, cases under this head, and the House can judge 
whether the committee were any more successful in administering “ equal and exact justice” to tire par¬ 
ties in this, than they were in the other branches of this inquiry. 

Isaac Jobes voted the Administration ticket in the township of Chesterfield, in the county of Burling¬ 
ton, at the election of 1838; his vote was objected to ori the ground of pauperism. William Tiel was 
examined as a witness, who proves that Jobes had not paid a tax for some years back, as he believes; 
reputed and considered in the township t.o be a pauper; thinks he had been in the county-house be¬ 
fore the election of 1838; on reflection, is confident that he had been ; that he sent him there himself 
as overseer of the poor ; took him there on the 5th day of May, 1835, and saw him there afterwards ; has 
every reason to believe that Jobes was a pauper at the election of 1838 ; lie could not say that lie had seen 
him at the county-house two years before the election ; his name was not on the regular part of the du¬ 
plicate, ar.d there being no cross mack against his name, it would seem that, his tax had not, been paid. 
Isaac Jobes himself was examined and swears that he did not pay his tax in 1838; does not know who 
paid it. John Hitchins gave him the receipt and be expects he paid it; took the receipt home and 
does not know what became of it; has been in the county-house ; was there in 1838, but had his regular 
discharge the last Tuesday in April; went in there the forepart of the previous winter, also last winter; 
went in after new year’s and left the forepart of March last, (1840 ;) has been in the county-house four 
times, but is able to support himself in the summer months. This is a very clear case of pauperism,: 
one in which the party takes the tenant of the poor-house to the polis and pays his tax in consideration 
of getting his vote. Jobes was obviously qualified, but the majority of the committee overruled the 
objection and held his vote to have been a lawful vote. 

James Hoffman voted the Whig ticket in the township of Frankford, in the county of Sussex, at the 
election of 1838. Messrs. Vioorn and others objected to his vote on the ground of pauperism. Matthew 
J. Williams proves that lie said lie never paid a tax. He is a very poor man. His family were at 
the poor-house in June, 1838. He was not at the poor house himself. His family staid about a week,. 
Testimony is given by Guy Price and Samuel Price to the same effect, and there is no doubt as to the 
poverty of Hoffman ; that his family had received some relief from the Public, and, though he himself 
had not, the committee held the vote to be unlawful, and deducted it from the poll of Messrs. Aycrigg 
and others. We do not wish to be understood to complain of this decision, though it is manifestly a ques- 


11 


tionable case of pauperism; but if this be right, that of Isaac Jobes was grossly erroneous—a man who 
is undoubtedly poor, and the tenant of a poorhouse during the winter both before and after the election, 
gi/es an Administration vote, and the majority of the committee say it is a good vote ; and another per¬ 
son, who never saw the inside of such a building, and who merely had his family there for the brief 
peiiod of one week, gives an Opposition vote, and the same majority pronounce it an unlawful vote, or, 
in other words, a weak case becomes a strong one if the vote be cast one way, and a strong case be¬ 
comes the reverse if it be cast the other. 

Nathan F. Randolph voted the Administration ticket in the township of Woodbridge, in the county 
of Middlesex, at the election of 1833. Messrs. Ayerigg and others objected to his vote on the ground of 
pauperism ; they prove by Elijah Hewit that he was acquainted with Randolph; that he came to the poor- 
house, under the legal order of the overseer of the poor of the township of Woodbridge, four years 
ago last fall ; that he came in October, 1835, and remained three months; he has no property what¬ 
ever, and is supported by his friends; has seen his partisans pay his tax twice at the elections, once since 
the election in October, 1838, and once before. No other testimony was adduced ; the committee over¬ 
ruled the objection, and held the vote to be a lawful one. 

Enos Dickerson voted an Opposition ticket in the township cf Jefferson, in the county cf Moiris, at 
the same election. Messrs. Vrooni and others objected to his vote on the same ground ; they examined 
Dickerson himself, who proves that he had not paid any tax in Morris county for the years 1837 and 1838, 
and does not know that he paid any tax for four or five years, except 1839 ; but that he was duly as¬ 
sessed for 183S. Joseph Dickerson swears that E. D. is a poor man. He has been assessed in the town¬ 
ship of Jefferson for the last ten years or more, but that the township committee have relieved the con¬ 
stable from the payment of his taxes fora number of years past. This was the whole proof, and the 
committee sustained the objection, and deducted the vote from the poll of Messrs. Ayerigg ar d others. 

We beg the House to contrast these cases, and observe how widely different has been the treatment 
which the parties to this controversy have received at the hands of the committee. In both cases the 
voters v/ere poor men, doubtless quite poor. In Randolph’s case it did not appear that he was assessed in 
1838, and, if he was, we have good reason to believe that the tax was paid, as at other times, by his politi¬ 
cal friends to get his vote. In Dickerson’s case, he was regularly assessed, though the tax was after¬ 
wards remitted by the township authorities. In the former case, the voter had actually been the tenant 
of a poor-house. In the latter he had not. And Randolph was supported wholly by his fiiends, and 
Dickerson, for aught that appears, supported himself. We confidently submit that the indications of 
pauperism were much stronger in Randolph’s case than in that of Dickerson, and yet the vote of the first- 
was held to be a lawful, and that of the last an unlawful vote. We maintain that the disposition which 
the committee made of tiie cases was clearly unjust and erroneous. Many other cases of a similar 
character coming under the head of pauperism might be referred to, but it is believed to be unnecessary. 

The undersigned would observe <hat early in the investigation a question arose as to the character of 
the proof which should be received and deemed sufficient to enable them to appropriate such of the votes 
as they might determine! to have been unlawful. In New Jersey the right of ballot obtains as in most 
of the States of the Union. If an unlawful vote be cast, how are we to ascertain who had the benefit of 
such vote 'l It is obvious that, in many cases, it will be impracticable to obtaki positive proof. In some 
cases the voter may be willing to appear and disclose the fact under oath ; in other cases it may be in 
the power of the party to produce a witness w'ho can swear to the chare.ctei of the vote given ; but, in 
many more, no evidence of that description can be obtained to ascertain the fact, in controversy. It 
seems to the unersigned to be indispensable to receive secondary evidence to this point—such as the 
declaration of the voter either at the election or soon after, and also proof of his political char¬ 
acter, which, when w T ell defined, will be a sufficient guide to the truth. But we ought to be very care¬ 
ful not to receive and act upon evidence of an equivocal character which may have been created or man¬ 
ufactured for the occasion. In adopting these views, there was a good degree of unanimity in the com¬ 
mittee, but the majority have been by no means consistent in carrying them out, as the following cases 
will prove : 

Peter Snyder voted the Administration ticket at Millville, in the county of Cumberland, at the same- 
election, and Messrs.Ayerigg and others proved by his own testimony that he was an alien and a foreign¬ 
er, unnaturalized. The only question was as to the ticket he voted. He swears that he voted four or 
five times before th.e election in 1838; that he then voted the democratic ticket; cannot tell whom he 
voted for; cannot read English; does not know who gave him the ticket; cannot tell why he wanted 
to vote the democratic ticket. At the time he voted he lived at Schettersville, and supposes that the 
other men at Schettersville voted the same ticket he did. It appears from the evidence that a large 
number of aliens went from Schetter’s factory to the polls at Millville, and voted. John Frank testifies 
as follows : I took some pains in getting the men employed by Mr. Schetter to the polls at the election. 
I gave tickets to a number of them, and gave them the Van Buren ticket. Afterwards, he adds: “I 
suppose that all the unnaturalized foreigners (except Philip Schetter) from Schetter’s factory, voted the 
Van Buren ticket. I think I had a right to know, from their expressing what kind of ticket they 
voted.” This was the proof. It seems to be explicit. The positive oath of Snyder that he voted the 
Administration ticket was confirmed by the little less positive testimony of Frank ; and yet the commit¬ 
tee could not see in such testimony any sufficient evidence of the character of the vote of Snyder. They 
refused to deduct it from the poll of Vroom and others, and left it a floating vote. 

Wm. J. Ayres voted in the township of Upper Alloway Creek, in the county of Salem. He was in¬ 
disputably an illegal voter, by reason of non-residence; and the only question submitted to the commit¬ 
tee was, as in the last case, vs to the character cf his vote. John D. Ay>-es was examined as a witness. 
He says : “ I don’t know wnat he voted, but my supposition is he voted the Whig ticket.” And after¬ 
wards, he adds : £t I do not know of my own knowledge what ticket he voted. I don’t know any 
thing about it at all. I said before, and again repeat, that my supposition is that William voted the Whig 
ticket. He goes with the Whigs. I am what is called a Van Buren man—full-blooded.” Ellis Ayres 
deposes as follows: 11 1 asked him (Wm. J. Ayres) yesterday what ticket he voted. He said he voted 
the Jackson ticket. I gave him two tickets, one of each kind, as we were going to the election. I 
believe he voted one of the tickets I gave him. He put one in one pocket, and the other in his other 


pocket. I understood him to mean by the Jackson ticket the one I termed the Jackson ticket when I 
gave it to him. It was the full-blooded Van Buren ticker, I gave him.” 

It should be known diat this testimony was taken at the instance of Messrs. Vroom and others, but those 
gentlemen did riot venture to submit it to the committee. It was brought forward by Messrs. Aycrigg 
and others, and they claimed that the vote of Ayres should be deducted from the poll of their competitors. 
It will be observed, on the other hand, that there was no other evidence that, he voted the Opposition 
ticket, except the mere supposition of J. D. Ayres that he voted the Whig ticket, without a single fact 
to support it. What the witness means by the voter “ going with the Whigs” does not appear. There 
was no proof that his reputation was that of a Whig, and no declaration before the election that he intend¬ 
ed to vote the Whig ticket, or, after, that he had voted the Whig ticket. The only affirmation which 
he in fact made on the subject was to Eilis Ayres that “he voted the Jac'kson ticket.” Afier the de¬ 
cision of the committee in the case of Peter Snyder, every one must be prepared for the result—that, 
this was a flouting or doubtful vote, that could not be appropriated. Not so; the committee could see 
in such proof that Win. J. Ayres voted the Whig ticket, and, incredible as it may seem, they deducted 
his vote from the poll of Messrs. Aycrigg and others. So that, on the question of deduction of a vote 
from the poll on one side, they cannot discern in the positive oath of a voter, fortified by collateral proof, 
how he voted; but, on a question of deduction of a vote from the other side, they can see this in a mere 
supposition or conjecture in opposition to the declaration of the voter himself, and not supported by a 
single fact. What more need be said to illustrate the inconsistencies which have marked the course 
of the committee ? 

But we now desire to call the particular attention of the House to the all-controlling principle which 
pervaded the deliberations of the committee, and which v/as ingeniously adapted to favor the “ foregone 
conclusion” that the Opposition claimants a e not entitled to the contested seats. The House will recol¬ 
lect the position of the controversy at the time we commenced the inquiry into the facts. The majority 
of the committee had previously reported to the House that the Administration claimants had received 
at the poll a majority of yotes of from thirty to one hundred and ninety-tight. Hence it will be'per- 
ceved that the party having such majority were interested to make the proof of illegal votes as difficult as 
possible. Any general rule, the effectef which, though administered with impartiality, should be to in¬ 
crease the embarrassment, would obviously operate in their favor; and we ask, what rule could be better 
adapted to the end suggested than that of giving an inordinate effect to the reception of a disputed, vote 
at the polls? This idea was a prolific source of difficulty to the committee, and, what is of more conse¬ 
quence, of flagrant injustice to one cf the parties. One of the many progeny of this suggestion was the 
legal absurdity that the party objecting on the ground of alienage must, under all circumstances, prove 
not only that the voter was an alien born, but, in addition, that he had never been naturalized. The com¬ 
mittee knew at the outset that Messrs. Aycrigg and others expected to prove many alien votes to estab¬ 
lish their right to the seats. This was set forth fully in the exposition of facts which they submitted 
to the committee at an early stage of the proceedings. The House cannot fail to observe how admirably 
the rule of negative proof is fitted to embarrass one side of this controversy, and to fortify the position of 
the other side ; but, nevertheless, it is the duty of the party thus embarrassed to submit to the evil, if the 
rule itself be founded in law. But we insist that it is not so founded. No precedent can he found of 
the application of such a rule to such a case. The party having the affirmative of the issue takes the 
burden of proof. A foreigner comes to the poll and votes ; you can prove that he is such, but how can 
yon prove that he has not been naturalized?’ Perhaps he may be willing to testify, and then you may 
prove the fact by his own oath; but suppose he is dead, or has removed away, or chooses to stand 
mute, he cannot be put to the question, he cannot be compelled to criminate himself. The rule imposes 
on the party objecting the necessity of searching alL the records in the Union, and getting the testimony 
of every record-keeper to prove the fact. This is manifestly impossible. No man in his senses can be¬ 
lieve that any such rule exists. 

It is a principle of the law of evidence t; that the affirmative of the issue must be proved, and he who 
makes an assertion is the person who is expected to support it, before he calls on his opponent for ail 
answer.” And again : “ The burden of proof lies on the person who has to support his case by proving 
a fact of which he is believed to be ignorant.”—(Vide Rogers’s Law and Practice of Elections, p. 114— 
117.) To suppose any member of the committee to be ignorant of a rule of law so old and universal, 
and founded in so much good sense, would be to justify his integrity and maintain his impartiality 
at the expense of his judgment, and every qualification required for the proper discharge of the duties 
of a Committee cf Elections. We disclaim all design of charging the course adopted by the majority to 
corrupt intentions, but we are very reluctant to embrace the other branch of the alternative, and con¬ 
clude, therefore, that some strange prejudice must have taken possession of the mind and led the 
judgment captive at will. 

But not only did the committee adopt a very extraordinary rule, but they applied it to the case in a 
very extraordinary manner, and thus essentially aggravated the evil which that rule .was adapted to 
inflict. For they hold votes to be lawful on account of the absence of proof of non-naturalization, in 
cases where, 

1st. The election officers decided that aliens had a right to vote accoiding to law, and avowedly 
admitted them to vote on that ground. 

2d. Where aliens were summoned before the magistrates who took the evidence, and where they re¬ 
fused to attend ; or, if they attended, stood mute as to their right. 

3d. Where the two circumstances above indicated were combined, as they were in many of the 
cases submitted to the committee. 

4th. Where aliens produced at the polls, as evidence of naturalization, a declaration of an intent to be¬ 
come naturalized at a future period, which we all know is a mere preliminary step to, but is not naturali¬ 
zation itself. 

In many cases the committee held'votes to be lawful where ail the above circumstances were united 
against the voter; and we should be wanting in duty to the contesting parties, to the People cfNew 
Jersey, and to the who(e country, if we did not bring the conductor the majority, in this particular, dis¬ 
tinctly to the notice of the House. 


13 


In the township of Newton, in the county of Sussex, alien votes were received, not only at this, but 
at previous elections, for a great number of years, and two of the judges, in the presence of the third* 
declared at this election that they considered such votes legal. It is also proved that, at this election^ 
they received the votes of a large number of such persons, and among them that of one about whom 
there was a contest, and who acknowledged that he had been in the country but little more than a year. 
At this poll, among the other foreigners, Moses Robinson, James Ennis, and Luke Flood voted for 
Messrs. Dickerson and his associates. Robinson and Flood were subpoenaed, but did not attends. 
Ennis was out of the State. All are proved to be foreigners ; and a witness swears, in respect to Ennis 
and Flood, not only that they are foreigners, but also that they are reputed to be aliens, and he believes 
they are so. The committee considered this evidence insufficient, and decided the votes to be legal. 

In the township of South Amboy, in the county of Middlesex, twenty foreigners came forward to vote, 
and presented what they supposed to be naturalization papers, but which, upon examination, turned out 
to be only declarations of intention to become naturalized; some ©f which bore date but a few days 
previous. These papers are proved to have been all of the same character—all mere declarations of 
intention. Nine of these men have become naturalized since the election, as was proved by the pro¬ 
duction of copies of their papers of naturalization, and their votes were thrown out by the commit¬ 
tee as illegal. But the votes of the other eleven, who have net yet become citizens, were decided to be 
legal. The decision of the committee, in this case, requires not only evidence that the voter is a foreigner, 
that he produced as papers of naturalization mere declarations of intention, but also the impossible 
negative proof that he had no others, although there is not a shadow of a pretext that he had them. And 
this, too, when the voter himself refuses to appear and give testimony. 

In the township of Millville, in the county of Cumberland, the board of election officers decided at 
this very election, in express terms, that foreigners not naturalized were entitled to vote, and the votes 
of thiity-one such persons are believed to have been received; seventeen of these went from a'single 
glass manufactory. Philip Schetter, who has been clerk of the manufactory, swears that they were 
all unnaturalized foreigners; that he has heard all or most of them say they were not naturalized; 
and, again, that he has frequently heard the whole or nearly all of them say that they were not natu¬ 
ralized. John Frank, a manager in the manufactory, who assisted in getting these men to the polls, 
speaks of them in general terms, as unnaturalized foreigners; and adds, that none of the foreigners of 
that place that were naturalized, so far as he knows ; that he heard some of them testify at Trenton that 
they were not. The clerk of the election swears to his belief that they were unnaturalized foreigners,, 
though he does not knowit of his own knowledge. Ten of these men still remain in the county, were 
produced, swore that they were not naturalized, and their votes were declared illegal by the committee. 
The votes of Three men, who are out of the State, were rejected on proof of their having sworn to the 
same fact at Trenton, before a committee of the Legislature ; but the votes of the other four, three of 
whom arc out of the State, and the fourth not to be found, were decided to be legal. I* is not a little 
singular that the vote of the only remaining foreigner, who went from the same establishment, and 
who is himself produced, swears unequivocally that he has been naturalized in Tennessee, and fully 
accounts for the absence of his papers, was rejected by the committee as illegal. Whether the fact 
that he alone, of the whole eighteen that went from that establishment, voted for the Whig can¬ 
didates, will account for this anomaly, we leave for the House and the country to determine. The 
undersigned would deprecate the establishment of any rule, the effect of which would he to embarrass 
in the least that portion of our fellow-citizens of foreign birth who are entitled to exercise the elective 
franchise. It is no hardship to them to require the production of their papers, which can. in nine cases 
out of ten, be readily done; or if that is attended with inconvenience, they can at least appear and 
make oath to the fact of naturalization. Any other rule than this opens the door for the perpetration of 
innumerable frauds, and at the same time throws in the way of investigation so many obstacles, that the 
existence and extent of such frauds can never be detected. It gives to a corrupt board of election officers 
the power of conferring all the rights of citizenship on whomsoever they please; on aliens just, land¬ 
ed, as ignorant of our language as they are of cur institutions, and fit only to become the prey of evil men. 
This v/e have every reason to believe was extensively clone in New Jersey at the election of 1838 ; and 
the majority have adopted and so applied rules of investigation and evidence as to establish and sanc¬ 
tify the whole. 

We conceive that such a precedent is a most flagrant violation of the Constitution and laws of the 
United States. By the Constitution the power is conferred on Congress to establish a uniform rule of 
naturalization, and that body has exercised the power by enacting laws for the purpose ; but if a board,of 
election officers can admit aliens to vote, and then a committee of elections will say we will presume 
them to be naturalized until the contrary is proved—we will presume it, though they themselves re¬ 
fuse to show their papers, or to say whether they have been naturalized or not—we will presume it, 
though they exhibit as evidence of their citizenship only declarations of an intent to become naturalized 
without pretending that the act had been consummated; if a committee is to do all this, and much' 
more, and the House is to sanction it, then we submit we have no uniform rule of naturalization, but 
the high immunities of an American citizen can be exercised and enjoyed by any stranger at the good¬ 
will and pleasure of any board of heated partisans who are more intent on gaining the paltry advanta¬ 
ges of an election triumph than to execute, in good faith, the duties imposed by the Constitution and 
laws of their country. But the foregoing is not the only provision of the Constitution which the com¬ 
mittee have nullified: “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of 
its own members.” The House has already passed judgment as to the returns and qualifications of the 
New Jersey members ; whether correctly or not, is not for us to say. Nothing now remains but a ques¬ 
tion of election. How is this to be settled'? According to the opinion of the majority, by applying to 
the case a series of presumptions which must render all hope of reaching the merits vam and nugatory ; 
or, in other words, it is proposed that the House shall blindly ratify all that the election officers have 
done to make their judgment against law, justice, and right, the judgment of the Hou«e, and conclu¬ 
sive on the parties. The manifold evils which must result from such a course—on the one hand, hold¬ 
ing out a strong temptation to perpetrate frauds in elections, on account of the impunity with which it 
may be done, and. on the other, by deterring parties aggrieved from every effort to detect them by 
reason of the difficulties thrown around the subject—are too obvious to need comment, 


14 


The undersigned think that great injustice was done by the committee in rejecting, on one side, for 
technical dofects, evidence in other respects competent, while, on the other, they received and acted 
upon evidence taken ex parte, without notice or an opportunity of cross-examination. 

Evidence taken by Messrs. Aycrigg and others in the county of Somerset, when the. other party at¬ 
tended and cross-examined the witnesses, was rejected because there was not eight days’ notice, and the 
attorneys differed in their construction of the term of a verbal argument by which a shorter notice was 
to be received. 

But the evidence taken on the part of Messrs. Vroom and others in the county of Mercer at a p ace 
different from the one mentioned in the notice, in the absence of the other party and without any oppor¬ 
tunity for cross-examination, was received as competent, contrary to the agreement of the parties as well 
as the ordinary and well-known rules cf law. 

We might state other facts of a similar character, but time will not permit. W e trust the subject will 
not escape the notice of the House in the final disposition of the case on its merits. 

The undersigned are of opinion that. the. committee have not attended sufficiently to the proofs adduced 
by Messrs. Aycrigg and others of numerous frauds and irregularities at sundry polls at the election ot 
1333, particularly at South Amboy, in the county of Middlesex; at Miliville, in the county of Cum¬ 
berland ; at Newton, in the county of Sussex; and Saddle River, in the county ofBergen. 

it is, in tlie judgment of the undersigned, of great consequence to the purity of the elective franchise 
and the perpetuity of our free institutions, that such a subject should be thoroughly investigated, and yet 
the committee have suffered nearly their whole time to be engrossed by the canvass of individual votes 
devoting to this all-important subject only a few brief hours. 

The House can hardly fail to learn with surprise that they left several of the most important questions 
under this head wholly unouclied. The undersigned cannot advert to the facts with particularity, but 
would observe that there is much in the evidence to indicate that there was a concocted scheme to carry 
the election of 1833 in favor of the Administration ticket by the introduction of unlawful votes. On no 
other hypothesis can we account for the fact, that it should have been discovered all at once in distant 
and remote parts of the State (and uniformly in townships where the election officers were friendly to 
the Administration) that aliens or unnaturalized foreigners had a right to vote. In South Amboy nineteen 
such aliens were admitted, in Millville twenty-seven, in Newton fifteen, and many others in various 
parts of the State, who voted the Administration ticket, and the election officers supported the Admin¬ 
istration. 

Not the shadow of an argument was adduced before the committee to justify such conduct, and we 
cannot believe that the election officers acted under a misapprehension of the law ; these motives were 
too obvious to need comment. They seem to have been blessed with a remarkable prescience of what 
would be the action of a Committee of Elections on votes once got into the ballot-box, no matter how il¬ 
legally, and to have governed themselves accordingly. We would state, in addition, that in the town¬ 
ship ofSouth Amboy a Whig inspector was duly elected by the majority of the people present, at the 
time prescribed by law, but was not permitted to act. The moderator of the town meeting, after such 
choice, took upon himself to proclaim a new election, and he kept the same open until a sufficient num¬ 
ber of his political friends were assembled to secure the election of the Administration candidate. This, 
of itself, would seem to us to be sufficient to render the election, so far as this township is concerned, ir¬ 
regular and void. 

It appears, from proof which we deem quite satisfactory, that thirty-two votes were deposited in 
the ballot-box at Saddle River for the Opposition candidates. The voters themselves swear to it in posi¬ 
tive terms, and yet, fram some cause, when the votes came to be counted off, the number appears to be 
only twenty-four. We do not intend to cast an imputation upon the inspectors of the election ; they 
are, doubtless, respectable men; but the House can hardly fail to be impressed with the fact that evi¬ 
dence is adduced as to the good character of the inspectors, but none at all a« to the clerk, and, as he had 
charge of the ballot-box, he can doubtless explain the rule of reduction , which seems to have operated 
so mysteriously in Saddle River township. 

It appears from the evidence that, in the township of Newton, in Sussex county, besides the admission 
of alien votes, the names of no less than one hundred and twenty-nine persons, some with merely a 
nominal tax, were added to the duplicate at. the time of the election, to enable such persons to exercise 
the elective franchise. What proportion this number bears to the whole vote of the township the 
undersigned do not certainly know, (as the county returns sent up among the other evidence have been 
mislaid and not printed,) but we understand it is somewhere about cne-sixth of the whole number. 
None can be added, according to the laws of the State, except such as were “inadvertently overlooked” 
by the assessor in making out the list. 

Now, it is incredible that such an officer, whose duty it is to exercise the greatest diligence in ascer¬ 
taining the names of taxable inhabitants, should accidentally overlook one-sixth of the people of the 
township. This fact throws great discredit on the poll at Newton, and is, in our judgment, quite suffi¬ 
cient to make it the duty of the opposite party to give some explanation of so extraordinary a transaction. 

But the undersigned cannot enter any further into the details appertaining to this branch of the sub¬ 
ject. They hope the House will give it a thorough scrutiny. 

It is proper that we should here notice a very singular occurrence which took place duiing the prog¬ 
ress of this business. A few days before the close of the labors of this committee, three of the under¬ 
signed, worn out with thiB protracted investigation, and despairing of effecting any good, or of prevent¬ 
ing any injustice by continuing to act with the committee,'and admonished by the refusal of the majority 
on a former occasion to allow them even one day to make a counter-report, abandoned the committee 
room to prepare this statement, and to attend to some urgent calls upon their time. Most of the con¬ 
trasted cases had been prepared as above given, with a view of exhibiting to the House the gross incon¬ 
sistency and palpable injustice which marked the proceedings of the committee, when the three mem¬ 
bers of the minority, above alluded to, were surprised to learn that the majority, after having examined 
all the votes, and ascertained that the Administration claimants, upon the principles adopted as before 
stated, not only would be enabled to retain their seats, but that the majority given in their favor at the 
polls would to some extent be increased, had gone back and reconsidered and reversed the decisions 
of the committee in a few of the flagrant cases of irregularity, inconsistency, and injustice. 


15 


To do this they suspended the rules (being those of the House itself) which the committee had, at the 
outset cf the investigation, adopted to govern its proceeding?, and having thus gained access to the rec¬ 
ord, they undertook to blot out some of the dark stains with which it is disfigured. 

But the hope is vain and futile. To what purpose is it that the majority reverse as they did the strange 
decisions which they originally made in the cases of John McConagby, Charles T. Poo!, and Charles P. 
Marks,after they had discovered that the disposition of those cases was wholly immaterial 7 No; repent¬ 
ance and reformation came too late; the spirit disclosed by the cases of McConagby, Pool, and Marks 
had characterized the investigation from beginning to the end. They had been permitted to stand as 
precedents, and to carry along with them a large train of cases cf the same general character. They 
had operated with other causes to awaken in our minds sensations which it would be difficult to describe, 
and hod induced three of us to abandon the committee room. 

If the majority suppose that they can thus escape the responsibility of having made those decisions, 
they will find themselves mistaken. 

They did not carry the good work far enough ; they should have reversed the decisions in a large num¬ 
ber of other cases not less flagrant, by which the result as to some of these parties at least would be 
entirely changed. 

Besides, the House decided, during the present session, on the pilotage question from New York, 
that a committee has no right to reverse, reconsider, or annul a decision or resolution which they have 
once made or adopted ; and though the undersigned did not concur in that view of congressional law, yet 
the vote of this House was at least binding on the majority of this committee ; so that, on every ground, and 
particularly for all purposes of responsibility, we regard the original decisions of the committee in the re¬ 
versed cases as still subsisting and binding. v But whether they are so or not, we do not deem important, 
as a host of other cases remain, which imperiously demand revision by a tribunal of plenary powers—by 
the House itself. We have already stated that throe of the undersigned were constrained to abandon 
the committee-room; the other member of the minority remained steadily at his post, liitle more than a 
spectator of the doings of the majority, with no power to do good or prevent evil, tili he was brought 
to the hour often o’clock on the evening of the 11th instant, when, finding that the majority had resolved 
to have a midnight session, and that his physical capacities for endurance were completely exhausted, 
he, also, was obliged to leave the case to its fate. What took place after that, the undersigned do not 
know in such manner as to make it proper to siate it; but we have only to suppose a case in which a 
standing committee of the House continues its deliberations in desecration of the sacred Sabbath, with 
a bare quorum present, not mentally but corporeally; maintaining their vigils with listless impatience, and 
thus forcing an oppressed and much injured party to abandon the vindication of his rights, and we 
shall probably form some conception of the manner in which grove and important questions can be settled, 
that are in a high degree interesting to the people of an entire State. 

The undersigned would not do justice to a highly meritorious public officer if they failed to notice 
the calumnious imputation attempted to be cast upon the character and conduct of the Executive of New 
Jersey, through the testimony of Daniel H. Eliis, which lias been spread before the House and country 
with a view to create the impression that he had prostituted his staMon and office to partisan purposes, 
and had pursued a very partial, unfair, and disingenuous course to favor one of the parties to this contro¬ 
versy. But the allegation of Ellis has been shown, by the oaths of three credible witnesses, to be ut¬ 
terly false ; and Ellis himself, after detection, has, by a volunteer affidavit, put in a plea in avoidance 
of his slanders, on the ground of mistake. We have only to regret that, if these who have preferred 
so serious an accusation against Governor Pennington did not know it to be false, they did not, at least, 
take some pains to ascertain its truth before they ventured to make the charge, particularly as that gen¬ 
tleman seems to have acted, under very trying circumstances, with singular fidelity to the obligations 
imposed by the laws and institutions of his State. 

But we "need not dwell on this subject; for what has a public man to fear, no matter how much'his 
conduct maybe misrepresented or his motives traduced, when he is sustained bv conscious rectiiude, and 
renewed expressions of the confidence of a generous and enlightened People 7 

Much censure has been cast upon the clerks of Cumberland and Middlesex because the return of 
votes from the township of Millville and South Amboy were not included in their general lists for¬ 
warded to (he Governor ; with how little justice, the following facts will show. The Millville return 
was made to the clerk on the 13th of October, between the hours of “ ten and eleven" in the after¬ 
noon ; and as the law of New Jersey is positive that the return shall be made to the clerk “ before 
five o’clock of that day,” and he is then at five o’clock to make his genera! list to be transmitted to 
the Governor, of course, he could include in that genera! list m» returns, except such as were received 
“ before five o’clock.” The clerk had no discretion. He proceeded according to law, and is in 
no way censurable. The blame, if any, belongs to the election officers. The return from South Amboy 
was made by a judge and inspector, and by Jas. M. Warne, representing himself as an inspector: his 
name, however, as such, does not appear in the list of town officers, nor was there any certificate or other 
evidence of his election as inspector filed with the clerk, as the law requires, if he had been duly elected 
to supply a vacancy, which we insist he was not. 

The law requires the certificate of such election to be filed with the clerk within three days. None 
such wa 3 ever filed. The certificate was presented to the clerk ten days after the election, and after 
the general list had been made out and sent to the Governor. Of course, as the return was not made 
according to law, the clerk could not receive it, especially in a case like South Amboy, where the election 
of this very inspector was disputed as illegal and fraudulent, and where he and those who acted with him 
decided to receive alien votes, and actually did receive a number of such. The evidence adduced to 
sustain the charge of fraud against the clerk of Middlesex very clearly disproves the whole charge, 
and his conduct, like that of the clerk of Cumberland, was strictly in accordance with the law, and 
in no wise censurable, unless the refusal to violate the law in order to receive an illegal return, inclu¬ 
ding a number of alien and illegal votes, be censurable. If we were disposed to indulge a censorious 
disposition, it would Jnot be difficult for us, on the other hand, to show from the evidence that the con¬ 
duct of the clerks of Somerset, Burlington, and Monmouth, all friendly to the Administration, was, at this 
very election, quite reprehensible ; but time will not permit. 


1(6 


But the question as to the propriety of the conduct of the clerk.? of Middlesex an 1 Cumberland is whol¬ 
ly immaterial, as our object is, or should he, to ascertain which of the claimants received a plurality of 
the lawful votes of New Jersey. The idea that these gentlemen are responsible for the disfranchise¬ 
ment of the State, and for the exclusion of five-sixths of her delegation from the Hall during much of the 
session, by which the authority of her laws has been spurned and her dignity trampled in the dust, is too 
puerile to be worthy of notice or comment. 

Tim undersigned will now proceed to state the result to which they have come on a careful examina¬ 
tion of the case. If we were at liberty to take into consideration the whole proof submitted to the com¬ 
mittee, we should havejlittle or no doubt but that the entire Opposition ticket would be tound to be duly 
elected ; but excluding the mass of evidence which was rejected by the committee or. grounds merely 
technical, we are clearly of the opinion that Messrs. Chailes C. Stratton, John P. B. Maxwell, and Wil¬ 
liam Halsted, of the Opposition ticket, and Messrs. Peter D. Vrootn and William R. Cooper, of the 
Administration ticket, were duly elected members of the 2Glh Congress by a plurality of the lawful votes 
of the People of New Jersey. 

We find that from the polls of Messrs. Aycrigg and his associates the following votes should be de¬ 
ducted, which wc were of opinion were unlawful votes, viz. 

John Udy, John Whitehead, Wra. C. Eyring, George Dilts. Thomas Simpson, J. W. Cortelyon, 
Henry T. Tanner, James Skinner, Chester Morey, Garret A. Cook, Rensselaer Dockerty, Peter Me- 
leok, John T. Bray, John McMarriman, Lorenzo D. Cummins, John Teats, Lewis Stumpfel, Frederick 
M. ciuerrin, John Byerly, Gilbert Elliot, John S. Townsend, John W. Loder, John Colycr, John Siaugh- 
blower, James B. Bolton, Ebenezer Perry, James Kiyle, Robert More, Samuel Knox, John Parr, 
Samuel Lewis, Thomas Goohir, Morgan W. Spade, Rezekiah Ewan, Joseph Merron, John Wright, Frazee 
Griffen, Abraham J. Ricker, Jacob Massaker, Win. Massaker, John Freeman,Isaac J. Jacobus, Henry 
Myer, Charles A. Bedell, Richard Jones, Ainos Price, Andrew Wade, Sandfcrd Kicks, Ezra Hill, 
Daniel Matthews, George Addains, William W. Black, Barney Gallagher, Isaac Burgey, Miles Jenson, 
Artemus Anderson, David Doland, Henry Thornton, John A. Cadmus, Adam Potter, Andrew Parsons, 
William Mitchell, Abraham Massaker, Nathaniel Crook, John M. Robinson, John Foy, Thomas Bly- 
denburg, William Brown, John G. Conov.r, Alexander Henderson, David Annderson, Felix Eyde, 
Wm. C. Parsons, Joseph E. Oliver, Andrew Cassedy James Hultor., Thomas Hutton, Richard Davis, 
Samuel Orr, David Wood, Daniel Bonnet, and Benjamin Long—being in all 82 votes. 

To the votes of the claimants should be added the votes cf^Charles R, Swallow, Wm. Weller, 
James G. Moore, Feter Swartz, James Teats, Aaron Vanderhoof, James Blauvelt, James Bell, John 
Carpenter, Thomas Brown, Daniel Swartz, Thomas Cadwallader, jr. Elijah Swartz, arid Nelson Brown 
—being 14 in number, whose votes were illegally rejected at the polls. Also, ilie seven votes not 
counted at the polls of Saddle River; and to Maxwell and Halsted the vote of Asher Atkinson. 

We find that from the poll of Mr. Vroom and his associates the following votes should he deducted, 
which we are of opinion are unlawful votes, viz. Benjamin Yougber, John McConaghy, Abraham Klotz, 
G eorge W r . Morgan, Charles Parks, Moses Ammerman, Alexander Lucts, J. Back, Nicholas Arrow- 
smith, Abraham Bryan, Thomas A. Drake, John I Buck, Henry R. Doty, Herbert Smith, John Budine, 
Thomas Warner, Matthew L. Ribble, Hugh W. Holloway, Nathan Benett, Francis Anthony, William 
Gulic, James Wamsley, Wm. Scureman, E. Patterson, Robert Martin, Hugh Cochran, Wm. Carney, 
Patrick O’Neil, John Gaflfany, Wm. McClintock, David Welsh, George Stephens, Dennis Cochran, 
Warren Wells, Andrew Kinsley, George Walker, Wm. Gray, Patrick Ferral, Theophilus Phillips, 
Michael Green, Daniel Kellager, James Ennis, David Wilson, James Deazley, Isaiah Wallen, Abraham 
Predmore, Robert Bears, John Murry, James Fraley, John P. Simmons, Atkinson Parks, William 
Muilere, Enos R. Booth, James Fiate, Michael Lawler, Patrick Rider, Edward Blake, N. S. Nolan, 
Thomas Chamberlain, Peter Losow, Francis Losow, Justin McCoy, Eustace Brownharat, Isaac Rake, 
Conde Carr, Moses Robinson, Look Flood, John Maloy, Charles Woods, James Whiteford, Neil Brown, 
Robert Christie, Robert O’Harra, Albeit Beeman, Samuel Cove, John McOonachy, S.A. Price, Andrew 
P. Brink, Philip Sullivan, John Stanton, Garret Freeling, James Mitchell, Augustus Malhelen, Isaac 
Jobes, Abel Edwards, William McWee, John Darmedd, Luke Stansbie, Joseph Barry, Edward Sey¬ 
mour, William Baker, Daniel Column, Robt. Edwards, Clark Hodden, Ward C. Courier, Aurora Mc- 
Loud, Christian Bone, Stephen Condict, AbijahO Harrison, William T. Hall, Anthony L. Frazee, Isaac 
F. Martin, Stephen Cutter, Jr. Hugh Ward, Stephen H. Heddon, John Baker, Robert Taylor, Mahlon 
Search, William Todd, John Dell, Rine Crirn, Caleb Terry, Christ. Blazier, Obadiah Older, Samuel 
Dawson, Edward Dawson, John Vrceland, Henry Cunningham, Giles Courter, George A. Huyler, Wm. 
Wharton, Henry Oneil, Thomas Entwisfle, Dennis McLauchlin, George Norman, Thos. Lynett, Jos. 
Thomson, David R. Schenek, Mich. MoColligan, Robt. Greenleaf, Martin Harney, Barney Malone, James 
Conologue, Francis Dale, Coley McDonnough, Hugh Conologue, Jas. Roake, Malachi Good, Patrick 
Murphy, Jas. Cassedy, John McCroney, Solomon Hustin, James McCoombs, Peter Bulger, Robert 
Smith, John Cathy, James Riley, John Ferguson, Hugh Campbell, Timothy Coleman, Samuel Low- 
rey, Wm. Mollineux, Edwin R. Owen, Henry Green, Isaac Hoff, Elias Green, Peter Barraut, John 
McCurdy, Wm. McCurdy, Hugh Richards, William Bobrman, Nicholas Buckage, Michael Schaum, 
Louis Schaum, Nicholas Hoffman, Daniel Garritt, Kerman Vogedir.g, Daniel McAnall, Constantine 
Voisard, Peter Snyder, Frederick Wittee, Archibald McCambvidge, Caspar Bricl, Louis Reitz, Fre¬ 
derick Eberliardt, Aloys Abendschoen, Louis Becker, Wm. Kaltcnback, sen., James Murdock, Wm. 
Kaltenback, jr. John Donly, William Williams, Christ. John Wildie, Andrew J. Bell, Chailes C. Fitbian, 
Walker Beely, Thomas Sinnickson 2d, Errick H. Katts, John Starts, John Tash, being one hundred 
and ninet)*- in number, with one vote given by John Slaughblewer to Dickerson. There should also be 
deducted nine votes from the polls at Saddle River, being so many counted for them more ilian there 
were cast. There should, however, be added to them the votes of William A. Marker, David B. Brown, 
Andrerv R- Gray, Patrick Smith, Charles Dean, George Smith, Wm. Crum, Robert McMuller, 
James Langdon, and Joseph F. Newcomb, and two votes not counted at the polls of Paterson, and to Yroom 
the vote of Asher Atkinson, improperly rejected at the polls. 

The following table exhibits the returns, with the corrections made by us: 


17 



Dickerson. 

Vroom. 

Ryall. 

Cooper. 

Kille. 


28,453 

28,492 

2S,44l 

28 455 

28,426 

Deduct 

200 

199 

199 

199 

199 


28,283 

28.293 

28,242 

28,256 

28,227 

Add 

12 

13 

12 

12 

12 


28,265 

28,306 

28.254 

28,268 

28/239 


Aycrigg. 

Maxwell* 

Hoisted. 

Stratton. 

Ynrke. 


28,295 

28,383 

28,337 

28,396 

28,321 

Deduct 

82 

81 

S2 

82 

82 


28,213 

28,302 

28,255 

28,314 

28,239 

Add 

21 

22 

21 

21 

21 


28/234 

28,324 

28.27 6 

28 335 

28 260 


The votes of John J. Alli-jer, Nelson Bedford, Herman C. Howard, John Smith, John O’Neil, 
and Wm. J. Ayres, were also illegal, but it did not appear for whom they voted. These votes do not 
affect the result. 

We have thus brought our labors to a close in the case of the contested election from the State of New 
Jersey. They h ive been to us exceedingly annoying and irksome. They have banished us from the 
House, and excluded us from many of the duties imposed by our relation to our constituents. We have 
been deprived of the pleasure of serving those to whom we are under many obligations, and for whom 
we cherish the highest affection and respect. Our names have been gazetted as absentees from the 
Hall, without the facts which would have explained an apparent d< reliction of duty. Owing to the 
peculiar organization of the committee, its proceedings, in the despatch of business, have been timorous, 
hesitating, and embarrassed; and, in consequence, the investigation has been unnecessarily protracted. 

The hope that our labors would terminate in any useful result has not cheered us on the way. It 
is our deliberate judgment that the House is in little bettor condition to know the truth of the New Jer¬ 
sey case than it would have been if the case had never been referred to the Committee of Elec¬ 
tions. The perversions of law, and the misconstructions of fact, daily occurring, to which we have 
already adverted, nothing could have induced us to persevere, for so long a period, but our sense of 
obligation to the House and to the People of New Jersey. Now, we would ask, what is to be done? 
Only three or four days of ihe session remain, and it is not possible for the House short of some 
weeks, to arrive at even a tolerable understanding of the case. It can at once be referred to the 
People of New Jersey, in accordance with the laudable suggestion made at an early day by one of the 
parties—a suggestion which every one can now see should have been embraced, and thus this House 
would have been saved infinite trouble, the public time would have been economized, and the country 
spared the evil resulting fora the precedent established at the commencement of the session. Or will 
the House adopt the conclusions of the committee without examination or scrutiny ? * 

This is inevitable if any action is taken on the subiect at the present session. In such an event, we 
shall witness a consummation of the indignities inflicted on the People of New Jersey, and nothing will 
remain but to take an appeal to public sentiment, which is the supreme arbiter of “ men and measures” 
in a free country. 

The reliance of the undersigned on the efficacy of such an appeal they trust is not presumptuous, and 
it is on this ground alone, after all that has transpired during the session in respect to the New Jersey 
question, that they repose any confidence in the perpetuity of our free institutions, or the preservation 
of the liberties of the American People. 

House of Representatives, July 16, 1840. MILLARD FILLMORE. 

TRUMAN SMITH. 

JOHN M. BOTTS. 

BENJ. RANDALL. 


PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENT4TIVES ON THE NEW JERSEY 
CONGESTED ELECTION.— June 16, 1S40. 

The report of the Committee of Elections on the New Jersey case, and also the counter¬ 
report from a minority of that committee having been lead at the Cleik’s table— 

And the question being on a motion of Mr. Campbell, of South Carolina, chairman of the 
committee, to print both reports together with the j >urnal of the committee, and on this mo¬ 
tion the yeas and nays having been ordered, and the question being about to be put 

Mr. CAMPBELL inquired of the Chair whether it would be in order for him to modify his 
motion 1 

The CHAIR, replying in the affirmative— 

Mr. CAMPBELL said that though he had at first moved to print both reports, yet now, after 
hearing the minority report read and knowing what it contained, he could not include that re¬ 
port in his motion to print; and he, therefore, would modify his motion so as to include only 
the report of the majority and the journal of the committee. # . 

Great confusion instantly arose, many gpntlemen rising and simultaneously addressing the 
Chair on the point of order, insisting that after the previous question had been demanded and 
seconded, on any motion submitted, the mover could not change or modify that motion without 
leave of the House, because the ordering of the previous question had direct reference to the 
motion made, and to that alone. 

The CHAIR replied that, according to the rules of the House, a member had the right to 
withdraw any motion he had made at any time previous to a vote upon it, and of course to 
modify it. 


2 























18 


Mr. BOTTS, Mr. FILLMORE, Mr. TRIPLETT, and Mr. ANDREWS, warmly remon¬ 
strated against the unfairness of presenting one proposition to the House, and demanding the 
previous question upon it, and when the House, waiving its right to discuss, supported that call, 
then substituting a different proposition, after all debate was cut off The right towithdraw, 
and the right to modify, were different things, and one did not necessarily follow the other. 

[The noise and confusion in the House was very greet ] 

Mr. CAMPBELL repeatedly rose to make a suggestion, but he was called to order, on the 
ground that all discussion was prevented by the previous question. 

Mr. EVERETT inquired whether the gentleman’s original motion, and his modification of 
it, would appear on the Journal ? 

The CHAIR replied in the affirmative. 

Mr. CLARK, of New York, warmly remonstrated, pronounced the proceeding a base trick, 
by which the House had been entrapped, and inquired whether the Chair adhered to its decision 
that the modification was in order 1 

The CHAIR replying in the affirmative— 

Mr. CLARK took an appeal from the decision. 

Mr. ME DILL, amidst loud cries of order, made a reply to Mr. Clakk, in which the reporter 
understood him to say that the whole course of the Opposition on the pretended claim of the 
returned members from New Jersey was an attempt to entrap the House. [The din and uproar 
were, however, so great that although at no great distance from Mr. M. who was speaking very 
loudly, the reporter could not distinguish his words.] 

The question was put on the appeal; when the decision of the Chair was sustained without 
a count. 

Mr. CAMPBELL again rose to make a suggestion—but 

Mr. PROFFIT strenuously objected, and insisted he should take his seat. 

Mr. ANDREWS now inquired of the Chair whether it would he in order to move a recon¬ 
sideration of the vote by which the previous question had been ordered ? 

The CHAIR said it would, if the gentleman had voted with the majority. 

Mr. ANDREWS said he believed he had, but was not quite certain. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Ky. said he had voted with the majority, and he would move the reconsider¬ 
ation, and demanded the yeas and nays. 

The CHAIR said that whenever a reconsideration of the previous question was moved, the 
question was always firstputon the seconding of the previous question, and never on the previous 
question itself; and on the seconding the yeas and nays could not be taken, as it was not. a 
vote of the House, but merely the sustaining of a proposal to vote. 

On this dictum of the Chair a question of order arose, and Mr. FILLMORE and Mr. R. 
GARLAND protested with warmth against thus being deprived of their constitutional privi¬ 
lege of having the yeas and nays recorded. Mr. G. observed that the tyranny practised by the 
majority in this whole New Jersey case had been such as was enough to drive freemen into 
open rebellion. Had it come to this, that a fifth part of the House were to be deprived, by a 
mere say-so of the Speaker, of a clear and certain right, guarantied to them by the Constitution? 
He demanded a case to be produced where such a decision had been made. He never had seen 
or heard of such a decision. 

Mr. TURNEY called Mr. Garland to order. 

The CHAIR turned Mr. G. to a very recent decision on a case precisely like the present. 

Mr. GARLAND denied the right of the Speaker to make any such decision, and Mr. FILL¬ 
MORE took an appeal, and demanded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. BRIGGS inquired whether, after the House had voted on reconsidering the seconding of 
the previous question, if that vote should be in the negative, another question could not then be 
put on the previous question itself, and whether on this the yeas and nays could not be had ? 

The CHAIR replying that it could-— 

Mr. FILLMORE said that this was all he asked for; and he thereupon withdrew his appeal. 

The question was then put on reconsidering the seconding of the previous question, and deci¬ 
ded in the negative. 

Mr. CHINN, of Louisiana, inquired of the Chair whether, after the House had seconded 
the previous question on one motion, the mover could then alter his motion so as to make it 
quite a different proposition, and the previous question remain still in force? 

The CHAIR replied that, according to the rules of the House, he might. 

Mr. CHINN then said that the rule ought to be altered. 

Mr. FILLMORE then moved to reconsider the vote ordering the previous question, i. e. 
the vote by which the House had this morning decided tlnvt the main question should then be 
put; and on this question he demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and being ta* 
ken, resulted as follows: Yeas 65, nays 80. 

The question now recurring on Mr. Campbell's motion to print the majority report— 

Mr. DAVIS, of Kentucky, moved to be excused from voting, and was assigning his reasons, 
when, having remarked that, by the manoeuvre of Mr. Campbell in modifying his motion, the 
House had been cheated out of the yeas and nays— 

Mr. CAMPBELL, with warmth, replied that, as he would not suffer such language to be ap¬ 
plied to him out of the House, he could not submit to it in the House. 

The CHAIR called Mr. Davis to order. Mr. D. insisted that he was in order. Much con¬ 
fusion ensued; when Mr. D. said if he was not allowed to give his reasons he would withdraw 
his request. 


19 


The CHAIR said he might stale his reasons, bat in doing so must keep within the rales of 
order. 

The question was now put on printing the report of the majority, and decided by yeas 1.72, 
nay 1, (Mr. Clark, of New York, voting in the negative.) 

Si) the repent was ordered to be printed. 

When Mr. Monroe’s name was called, he said he wished to be excused from voting in the 
House, but would not now detain the House by stating his reasons, because he intended to give 
his opinion most fully on this whole proceeding when out of the House. 

’ °* P on- m oved to print the report of the minority of the committee, 
l he CHAIR decided this motion to be not yet in order, as the motion of Mr. Campbell, on 
which the previous question had been demanded, included the printing of the journal of the com* 
naittee, and the question must therefore first be put on printing the journal. 

[A dispute here arose whether this was the fact, or whether Mr. C. had moved only to print the 
report ot the majority without the journal. Mr. Adams, Mr. Andrews, and Mr. Jas. Gar* 
land testified that they had heard the motion, and that it included the journal; Mr. Botts had 
been under a different impression, and the entry had been so made. It was finally agreed, 
however, that the printing of the journal had been included, and the entry was altered,] 

The question then recurring on ordering the journal of the Committee of Elections to be 
printed— 

Mr. DROMGOOLE demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered and taken, and result¬ 
ed as follows: Yeas 154, nays IS. 

bo the journal ol the Committee of Elections was ordered to be printed. 

Mr. FILLMORE moved to print the report of the minority of the committee. 

Mr. RAMSEY demanded the previous question, which was seconded, put, and carried ; and 
the main question being on ordering the printing, 
it was decided as follows : Yeas 102, nays 68? 

So the House ordered the report of the minority to be printed. 

Mr. JAMESON, of Missouri, moved that the report of the majority of the Committee of 
Elections be note adopted, and on that motion he demanded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. FILLMORE demanded of the Chair whether this motion, if carried, would not de¬ 
prive the parties concerned from being heard in their own cause at the bar of the House, as was 
the invariable usage of the House in all cases of disputed election 1 

The CHAIR replied in the affirmative. It would, if agreed to, bring the House to a direct 
vote on adopting the report. 

Mr. TRIPLETT inquired whether a majority could compel the House to vote on the report 
before they had heard either the parties or the evidence ? 

The CHAIR replied that, as to the power, of that the gentleman must judge; but should the 
previous question be ordered, it would bring the House at once to a direct vote on the resolu¬ 
tion in the report. 

Mr. TRIPLETT demanded that the testimony be read; surely, it was oppression—it was 
the very height of tyranny to insist on his voting before he had heard the testimony in the case 
he was to judge. How could he know what he was voting about 7 

[The confusion in the House was great—many members on their feet remonstrating and disput¬ 
ing with each other.] 

Mr. BRIGGS moved a call of the House, and made some remarks which could not be heard ; 
they were, partly, as the Reporter believed, a statement of what would be the effect of the vote, 
and a demand that, before such an act was done, the whole House should have time to be present 
and vote on so great a question. 

Mr. TURNEY loudly called Mr. Briggs to order for debating. 

Mr. BRIGGS denied that he was debating the question. 

Mr. R. GA RLAND demanded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. MONROE asked of Mr. Jameson whether it was his intention to force through the 

House a vote on that report to-night 7 If it was- 

Mr. VANDERPOEL here called Mr. Monroe to order. 

The CHAIR said Mr. M. was not in order. 

Mr. MONROE said then he would turn away from the gentleman from Missouri—be had 
done with him—and he would turn to the Chair, and ask of the Speaker whether his friend 
from South Carolina, (Mr. Campbell) —he believed he might call him his friend—he would 
call him his friend, for he believed, after all, that that gentleman did mean to act correctly—-had 
not originally moved the printing of the reports and papers with a view of their being taken up 
and considered to-morrow? Yet now the House was called to vote at once, under the previous 
question. What was the meaning of this gag law 7 He would not vole in that House under 

such coercion. , 

The yeas and nays were ordered on Mr. Briggs s motion for a call of the House. 

Mr. CAMPBELL asked Mr. Jameson to withdraw his motion. 

[Here the noise was so great as to drown the voice of any individual member, and the reply of 
Mr. Jameson could not be heard ; he wa3 understood, however, as refusing.] 

The question was put on the motion for a call of the House, and decided by yeas and nays, as 
follows : Yeas 67, nays /5. 

So the Plouse refused to order a call. 

Mr. BOTTS inquired whether the parties claimiug seats from New Jersey could not now bs 
heard at the bar of the House ! 



20 


The CHAIR replied in the negative; it would not be in order after the previous question 
had been demanded on the report. 

Mr UNDERWOOD, who had just returned within the bar of the House, rose and asked the 
Speaker what the main question would be if the previous question was ordered. 

The SFE AKER answered that the main question would be upon the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution reported by the committee. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD said, What! take that question before the reports are printed ? 

[“ Yes, yes,” was repli-ed by several gentlemen.] 

Mr. UNDERWOOD said, surely it was impossible; and if that question was forced, he would 
not and could not conscientiously vote 

Tbe previous question was now put, viz. “Shall the main question be now put?” And it was decided 
in the affirmative, by yeasand nays as foliows : Yeas 101,nays 85. 

So the House decided that the main question on adopting the report of the committee should now be put. 

Mr. ANDREWS, of Ky . asked to be excused by the House from voting upon the resolution of the ma jor¬ 
ity of the Committee of Elections, because, he said, that resolution was based upon the report of the ma¬ 
jority, and a state of evidence of which it was impossible for him or any member of this House (not of 
the committee) to know any tiling. His vote upon tiiis occasion would be as a sworn judge or juror; 
and as it had been (as every member of this House must know) impossible for him to know the extent 
of testimony and the weight, that should be given to the great mass of conflicting evidence, he felt that 
he mightsubject himself to an act of injustice and violence to his conscience as an honest man by voting 
either way. He had hoped that the proposition to postpone the vote upon the resolution until Saturday 
would have prevailed, and thus have afforded him and all others desirous to know', as jurors called upon 
to render a verdict on s , important a case, something of the testimony upon which that verdict is to be 
founded. He desired to do justice to all parties, and especially to his own conscience. He made this 
motion in all respect to the majority of this House, and to such as may feel that they are prepared to 
vote, and render a verd ct upon so momentous a question as that of the right of sovereign States of this 
Republic ; and as he hopes to return soon to his constituents, he desires to return to them, having nothing 
of which he would feel ashamed, or they justly complain. He, therefore, expressed the hope that the 
House would relieve him from so unpleasant a position as that of voting and rendering a judgment as a 
sworn judge in a case, of the testimony of which he could not by any industry on his part have acquired 
the slightest knowledge. 

The question being put, Mr. Andrews was excused. 

Mr. EVERETT moved to be excused from voting on the question, because he had neither heard the 
evidence nor the parties, some of whom, he was informed, desired to be heard at the bar of the House. 

Mr. MONROE said he should be glad if his name could be included with that of Mr. Everett. 

Mr. EVERETT demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered and taken, and resulted as /ol¬ 
io w's : Y'eas 70, nays 100 

So Mr. Everett was not excused. 

When the name of Mr. RARIDEN, of Indiana, was called, he rose and inquired of the Speaker, if 
the previous question was sustained, if that would bring the House to a direct, vote upon the question of 
the right to the seats in this House of the New Jersey claimants without affording the claimants the 
right to be h ard, or the members of this House the opportunity to hear one word of the evidence upon 
which the right to the seats has been or is to be determined ? 

The SPEAKER said that, would be the effect of the previous question, if carried. 

Mr. RARIDEN then said he was against it, as he could not guess at a question of such magnitude, 

Mr. BRIGGS said he most respectfully asked the House to excuse him from voting on the resolution 
now before them. His reasons were, first; if his mind was made up upon a full investigation of the 
case, he could not, with his sense of propriety and justice, vote to give either set of claimants their seats 
finally without hearing the opposing claimants. But there was another higher and stronger reason ; it 
was, that he had had no means of informing himself upon the merits of the question. He had not 
heard or read the evidence, and could not act with understanding and with safety. The evidence, con¬ 
sisting of a volume of near seven hundred pages, had not been placed before the members of the 
House. By voting either way he might do injustice to the other party. He begged leave to say that, in 
this request, he was not actuated by captious motives, but by a sincere wi^h to be relieved from the un- 
feignd embarrassment in which he found himself placed in relation to this important subject. This 
was the first time he had ever made such a request, and by granting it the House w'ould confer upon 
him a favor, for which they would be entitled to his thanks. 

The question being put, it was decided in the negative ; so the House refused to excuse Mr. Briggs, 

Mr. RIVES moved to suspend the rule, in order to make way for a motion that the further consider¬ 
ation of the report be fur the present suspended, and that it be made the special order for Monday next, 
but it was negatived- 

The vote being taken by tellers, resulted as follows : Ayes 64, lines 94. 

Mr. ADr.MS asked that he might be excused from voting, for the name reasons for which Mr. 
Andrews had been excused. But the House refused to excuse him : Ayes 49, nocs 91. 

Mr. LINCOLN asked to be excused. He said that, notwithstanding the votes which had just been 
given, he felt himself impelled by the strongest sense of duty to appeal to the indulgence of the House 
to relieve him from a call to vote, at this time, and under the circumstances, on the proposition of the 
committee. On taking his seat here, he had solemnly bound himself to respect and support the Con¬ 
stitution of his country. That Constitution made the House , and each member of it, as a component 
part of the body, “ the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members,” and im¬ 
posed high and sacred obligations in the discharge of this most important of all official functions. 
The report of the committee, by a bare majority, presented for the first time this morning, contains a long 
and elaborate investigation of the right of the sitting and the claims of the contesting members from 
the State of New Jersey, with reference to a mass of evidence which the committee alone have ex¬ 
amined, and upon which they have raised arguments and deduced inferences tending to justify the con¬ 
clusion to which they have arrived in the resolution offered to the House. On the other hand, the mi¬ 
nority of the committee have laid before the House their dissent to this report, exhibiting an entirely differ¬ 
ent state of the case, and coming to a different conclusion thereon. Both these reports have, just now. 


21 


;>een nastily read at the Clerk's table. They must have been but imperfectly heard, and can scarce have 
uecn understood. The evidence exhibited with the reports of t ie majority, which is now on the table of 
■ e fepea er, in a volume of several hundred pages, lias not been seen by a single member out of the 
committee ; nor has it been within the power ofany, and especially did he speak for himself, to know 
t's character, or to consider the effect it should have upon the issue, so deeply interesting to the rights 
of menu ers, the sovereignty of the States, and the vital principle of representative government. 

1 am now called upon (said Mr. Lincoln) to decide upon the merits of this great question ; to judge, 
to adjudicate, upon my conscience and my oath, upon fuels which I do not know-, upon evidence 
vv nch 1 am told exists, but which I am riot permitted even to see, whether the sitting members are, 
oi aie not, entitled to their seats. The alternative presented to me, by the resolution of the committee, 
is to declare, blindfoldwpon my oath as ajudge, either that these members are duly and constitution¬ 
ally elected to this House by the people ot New Jersey, and this, too, against th« off ial credentials, in 
the fust instance, upon the canvass of the returns by the Governor and Privy Council of the State, given 
to others, or to show; cause, here and before the country, why l resist the conclusion to which the commit¬ 
tee have arrived in their resolution, upon a subsequent scrutiny by them of the votes and polls of that elec 
tion. Sir, 1 can do neither, understanding^ and conscientiously, without time and opportunity for exami¬ 
nation. I cannot consent, under the solemn sanctions of duty, to substitute the opinions of a majority 
ot one in a committee of nine members, (nor, indeed of th§ whole number, if even such had been the 
tact) for the convictions oi my own mind in the required exercise of my own judgment. To do so would 
be to yield my individual judgment to that of others, as well as to surrender the judgment which 
the Constitution and the laws enjoin upon the House to a Committee oi its members; and, in my 
opinion, to falsify and violate both my personal duty and my official oath. This, sir, 1 will never do. 

it may not be proper to anticipate the course which 1 may be compelled to take, unless excused 
from the vote ; but this I will say, that whatever a sense of duty and the dictates of conscience shall 
prompt, in a matter so serious in principle, and so momentous in its results to the Government and the 
People, 1 will pursue, at any peril of consequences to myself, from the. censure of the House. 

The question being put on excusing Mr. Lincoln, it was decided in the negative! Ayes 54, noes 89. 

Mr. LEWIS WILLIAMS, for the same reasons given by Mr. Andrews, asked to be excused, but 
the House refused leave. 

Mr. DAWSON asked to be excused. He said he never had directly or indirectly evaded any vote 
in that House for party purposes or political effect, and he would unhesitatingly discharge the duty of voting 
now if it were practicable, but it was not, for various reasons. He had not had an opportunity of getting 
that information which was indispensable to his voting either one way or the other. The testimony in 
this case had not been printed and laid on his table, nor had it been read before the House. He was 
called to decide, judicially, on a question resting on testimony which he had had no means to ex¬ 
amine. He considered the whole proceeding as unwarranted by the Constitution and contrary to the 
rules and practice of the House, and as impairing his right to decide for himself. The two reports, one 
fr om five members of the committee and the other from four, gave conflicting accouuts of the facts of the 
case, and to compel him to decide between them without having heard the evidence was such an act as 
despotism itsel , alone could perpetrate. By yielding to such a requirement he should sacrifice the funda¬ 
mental prineiplesof the free government under which he lived. An imperious sense of duty, therefore, 
compelled him respectfully to ask to be excused. 

At this point, Mr. TURNEY called Mr. Dawson to order. 

The CHAIR pronounced Mr. D. to be in order. 

Mr. D. said the attempt to call him to order and to shut his mouth from giving his reasons was of a piece 
with the whole proceeding, and was but a part of that tyranny by which it was attempted to force him 
into an act which lie could not perform without the grossest injustice to the parties concerned, to his 
own self-respect, and to his duty to his constituents. 

The question being put, the House refused to excuse Mr. Dawson. 

Mr. MONROE said he would be glad to be able to say, as the gentleman had who just now resumed 
his seat, that he had never violated the rules of the House. Mr. M. had often violated them, and in all 
human probability should do it again on this occasion. (Laughter.) When neither the Constitution, nor 
the law of the land, nor the usages of this House called upon him or permitted him to vote, he would 
notask to be excused from voting. He did notask it. He would assume the responsibility of refusing to 
vote. He would assure the House they bad heard the last of him on this matter ; but, as an independent 
representative from the State, of New York. I do (said Mr. M.) ask the House to hear this : Mr. 
Monroe refuses to vote because be has never seen the evidence or the report of the committee ; he 
therefore cannot decide which of the claimants are entitled to seats ou this floor.” 

Mr. WADDY THOMPSON said: 1 ask the House to excuse me from voting on the resolution. It 
is in no wanton disrespect to the House that l say I cannot, and will not. vote upon the question. This 
is not an ordinary ma ter of legislation; it is a case where, in the very terms of the Constitution, I am to 
act as judge, and under all the sanctions of that sacred character. The case which.I am to decide is 
purely a matter of evidence: that evidence, is comprised in six hundred pages of manuscript, to day, 
for the first time, presented to the House, and up to this moment it has neither been read nor printed. 
The resolution may be right : how am I to know that it is not? I cannot, therefore, vote no. It 
may not be right: l cannot vote ay. There is but one judge of whom either history or poetry informs 

us, whose ha'o?t was to decide before he had heard the evidence : he was the Judge of Hell I shall not 
adopt him as a model. I know no case in which an issue can be more properly jnade, none that wdl bet¬ 
ter show to the People the extent to which the reckless insolence of power has carried the majority than 
this; and it is for that, and not as an idle vaunt that I tell you that 1 was in my seat when my name was 
called. I did not vote, and 1 will not. I defy the power of the House lo make me vote. 

Mr. Thompson was not excused. , . ,. . .... 

Mr POPE in some remarks which could scarce be heard amidst the noise, stated his inability 
to vote without hearing the testimony: he lad not prejudged the case, but wished to give an honest 
vote upon it: hut how could he, as a sworn judge, do this, when he had not heard a word of the evi¬ 
dence? Mr. P. appealed, with much feeling, to the majority, for the honor of the House, and the honor 
of their party, that they would not perpetrate so great an act of oppression. Such a thing had never 
been witnessed since the foundation of the Government. Never before, in any legislative body in this 


22 


country had persons claiming a seat been denied the privilege of being heard : never had judges been 
called on to decide without hearing either parties or testimony. 

Mr. Pope was not excused. 

Mr. SERGEANT said: I cannot vote upon the question, for the following reason : the question is of 
a judicial nature, to be decided according to the evidence and the law, and I deem it my duty never 
to render a judgment without being informed of the law and the facts of the case, and, in proper cases, 
having heard the parties. The resolution of the House to decide immediately upon the coming in of the 
reports, before they are printed, and when there i3 no opportunity to examine them, or to examine 
and compare the evidence, all opportunity for discussion and amendment being at the same time cut 
off by the previous question, would be, in my opinion, to pronounce a judgment without knowledge, 
and a violation of the dictates of conscience and duty. I consider myself deprived of my vote by being 
deprived of the opportunity of informing myself how to vote 

The question being put, the House refused to excuse Mr. Sergeant. 

Mr. BOND also asked to be excused, but what he said in support of the request wa3 totally inaudible 
to the Reporter. 

Mr. CUSHING asked to be excused from voting on the question, for the following reasons : The 
Committee of Elections (said Mr. C.) present to the House a resolution, on which the members are cal¬ 
led to vote. That resolution allirms that certain gentlemen are entitled to sea^s in the House from die 
State of New Jersey. This proposition involves many complicated questions of law, and is founded on 
a vast mass of evidence ; and 1 am called on as a judge in the matter, under the Constitution, to de¬ 
cide thereon.. I cannot decide these questions of law without opportunity for consideration, which has 
not yet been given to me. I cannot decide the questions of fact without hearing or reading the evi¬ 
dence, which, however, has not yet been submitted to rne for that purpose. Under such circumstan¬ 
ces, I cannot conscientiously vote either yea or nay ; for I do not and cannot know on which side the 
truth lies. I am in the condition of the Roman judges, when they returned a verdict of non liquet. 
Thus situated, I cannot and I will not vote on the question ; but out of respect to the House I ask 
them to excuse me, for the reasons 1 have assigned. 

Mr. Cushing was not excused. 

Mr. PROFFiT referred to the contradictory statements of the.two reports. He had attentively 
listened to them both, and bis mind had been balancing on the subject, and for this reason he had this 
morning called for the reading of the testimony. He asked to be excused, but. if the request was reject¬ 
ed, he should refuse to vote. If this were a question of dollars and cents merely, the House could 
not refuse ; how much less when it involved such great principles and such serious consequences ? 

Mr.PROEFiT was not excused. 

M r. CALHOUN said: lasktobe excused from voting, for three reasons, end in three words. The 
reasons are, that. I profess to be guided by my conscience , by the Constitution , and by evidence; to 
all of whi h 1 shou'd do violence should I vote under existing circumstances on either side of this question, 

Mr. Calhoun was not excused. 

Mr. BELL said he could not ask to be excused, for be was utterly unable to vote, and as it was not 
his duty to vote under such circumstances, there was nothing to be excused from. 

Mr. SALTONS TALL, of Massachusetts, said lie felt impelled, by a sense of duty, to ask to be ex¬ 
cused from voting. I am, said he, wholly unprepared to vote upon the resolution, and without any fault or 
neglect of ray own. The House will recollect that 1 took a lively interest, and had a decided opinion 
upon the question which agitated us seven or eight months ago, as to the right of the regularly returned 
members to seats. Since that time 1 have known nothing of the progress of tli6 controversy. I have 
not read any statements upon the subject, and have not bad ten minutes’ conversation with any member 
of the committee upon the evidence in the case, or the questions which it presented. How, then, can 
I now vote? How can I undertake to decide who are entitled to seats ? 

What is the. state of the case? Several months ago the subject was referred to the committee : they 
have been ever since engaged in its examination. This morning they have presented majority and 
minority reports, the rea ing «f which has occupied several hours. These reports refer frequently 
to the evidence and to their own journal. The volume of evidence which you, sir, have just informed 
us contains nearly 700 pages, was laidupon your table with the reports , this morning. It has not 
yet been placed upon ours ; neither has the journal, another large volume. We have had no op¬ 
portunity to read a word of either. This is a most complicated case, presenting very important legal 
questions, upon which an able committee, composed of professional gentlemen, are divided in opinion. 
After a careful and laborious examination, tiiey have come to different results—a bare majority deciding 
that certain persons are entitled to seats in this House, which tiie minority of the committee are of opin¬ 
ion belong to other gentlemen. I listened attentively to the reading of the reports, until I found that it 
would be utterly impossible to form an opinion upon the merits of the case without examining the 
evidence, not doubting that an opportunity would be allowed us for that purpose. ! cannot vote under- 
standingly upon the resolution. I cannot undertake to decide a case which 1 have had no opportunity to 
examine, without the hazard of doing flagrant injustice. I therefore respectfully ask that I may be 
excused from voting. 

Mr. Saltonstall was not excused. 

Mr. SLaDE asked to be excused from voting in this case, because it is morally impossible to render 
a judgment without being in possession of the case. 

Mr. Slade was not excused. 

Mr. G. DAVIS, of Ky., respectfully asked the House to excuse him from voting on the resolution 
reported by the majority of the Committee of Elections in favor of Mr. Vroom and the other four 
gentlemen associated with him as entitled to seats in the House as Representatives from the State of 
New Jersey, not from any disposition to avoid the responsibility of adjudging the case, but for the fol¬ 
lowing reasons, viz. 

1st. Because he understands the other gentlemen claiming the same seats are desirous to be heard at 
the Bar of the House in support of their right; and it has been a universal usage to allow gentlemen 
placed in such circumstances this privilege. 

2d. Because he considers the House in passing on said resolution to he acting as a court and himself 
as a judge, and that as such he is sworn to decide according to the law and evidence of the case. He 


23 


.ns never read the testimony in the case. He has had no opportunity until this day to understand the 
points on which the several parties rely for a maintenance of their rights. And since then he has had 
no opportunity of reading and examining the evidence bearing upon the points which urise in the case, 
if a judge of au ordinary court were to proceed to render a judgment under such circumstances, I think 
he would be justly liable to impeachment. Wherefore, not unoeretanding the case himself, and not 
having had an opportunity to understand it, he asks to be excused Irom doing an act which he would 
consider as corrupt, and an impeachable offence if committed by a judge or a court, 

Mr. Davis was not excused. 

Mr. SlANLY hoped no more excuses would be asked for. He should ask for none. Let the 
majority consummate their work. 

Mr. MASON, of Ohio, moved that Mi\Halsted and his colleagues be now heard at the Bar of die House. 
The CHAIR pronounced the motion not to be now in Older. 

Mr. MASON thereupon took an appeal. 

The question was immediately put, and the decision of the Chair was sustained without a count. 

Mr. EVANS demanded the yeas and nays on the main question. 

Mr. COOPER, @f Pennsylvania, asked to be excused from voting on the lesolution, because the ma¬ 
jority had refused to permit the evidence on which it was predicated to be read- He said that the evi¬ 
dence was in the possession of the House, but that the members of the House h»d no opportunity 
to read it, or hear it read, since it v’as communicated in the morning; tl.it the question which he was 
called on to decide by his vote w-<s a judicial one; that he could only vote intelligen'ly upon it, after 
he had been made acquainted with the facts, and that, if he voted without a knowledge of tne facts, he 
Was voting in the dark; that, under such circumstances, he could not vote conscientiously, and did not 
see how the majority c mid justify themselves to their consciences or to the country, for voting upon such 
a question, or compelling others to vote upon it, in entire ignorance of the facts. He therefore hoped the 
House would excuse him. 

Mr. Cooper was not excused. 

Mr. ALFORD, ol Georgia, asked to be excused from voting on the question before the House. He 
said the rudest nation of savages never dishonored the name of man by condemning a fellow being withou 
hearing the evidence. It has been reserved (he said),for an American Congress, who claim to be civilized 
and intelligent men, to sot an example essentially violative of every principle of justice. You demand a de¬ 
cision of i his question and refuse the hearing of the proof. I demand the right to hear it. I have not heard or 
seen it. I could not. It is now produced for the first time. This is a judicial trial. I am one of the 
judges; my associate judges require me to decide this question, and refuse to allow me to read or hear the 
proof. You dishonor me by your conduct. I will not submit to your tyrannical dictation of perjury 
against my conscience. He that conceals or suppresses the truth under oath is as guilty of perjury as if 
he swore to a positive falsehood. And the most charitable conclusion, under the circumstances, is, that the 
evidence is against you. This is despotism with a vengeance. But I will not submit to its rude and insult¬ 
ing enforcement against me. I would suffer death before I would submit. I prefer that what little is 
known of me in the future should be consecrated by martyrdom for the laws and Constitution of my coun¬ 
try , than it should be said or written l yielded fora moment to the tyranny of a despotism so unreason¬ 
able and unjust. 

Mr. Alford was not excused. 

Mr. EVANS inquiredof the Chair whether the testimony had been read? The SPEAKER. It has not. 
Mr. EVANS. Is the testimony reported to the House, and now on the Speaker’s table? The 
SPEAKER. It is. 

Mr EVANS. I will thank the Chair to state of how many pages it consists. 

The SPEAKER, (taking up a printed volume.) It consists of over 600 pages. 

Mr. EVA NS. Will the Chair state when the testimony was laid upon the table? The SPEAKER. To-day. 
Mr. EVANS. As I am required to vote upon this question, and am utterly unable to do so under- 
standingly, without reading the testimony, I ask that it may be read. 

[Several voices in all parts of the Hall —“ No ; “ no.” ) 

The SPEAKER. It cannot be real but by consent of the House. 

[“No No,” from all parts of the House, by Administration members. “Read; read,” byW big members. [ 
Mr. EVANS. If I cannot be permitted to hear the testimony, I shall not vote upon it. After wha 
has occurred, 1 do notask to be excused. / will not vote. 

Mr. BOTTS. In order to correct any misapprehension that may arise from the statement of the 
Speaker that the testimony was laid upon the table to-day, I desire to state that it was laid upon the 
Speaker's table to-day, but has not yet been la d on the members’ tables ; nor has it been seen by more 
than nine members of the House, and they the members of the committee. 

Mr. BELL. I have never seen it. [“ Nor I, nor I,” from all parts of the House.j 

Mr. LEWIS wanted to ask a question from Mr. Campbell, chairman of the Committee of Elections. 

Mr. STANLY objected. 

[Great confusion, and cries of “No, no! order!” “Yes, yes! let him ask !” “ No, I object.” ] 

Mr. HILL, of Virginia, asked to be excused. Though he could not promise himself a better fate than 
those who had preceded him, yet he deemed it respectful to appeal to the House to excuse him. If the 
majority, without knowing or hearing the testimony, were willing, as judges, to pronounce upon it, con¬ 
trary to the Constitution, to the forms of parliamentary proceeding, to justice, and to decency, and would 
• suffer themselves to be forced blindfold to the decision of a case they had not heard, they must excuse 
others who had too much self-respect to follow them. Gentlemen might be content with sinking their 
own character and the character of this body, without insisting on dragging others after them. How 
would they stand in the view of the nation ? To try the rights of a State of the Union on testimony ne ver 
read, printed, or heard? and judge it upon a single vote given in a committee ? Two hundred and forty- 
free Representatives surrendering their judgments to the keeping of one committee man ! 

Mr. H. was ca'led to order, and concluded by saying he would have no paitin so d testable a farce. 
Mr. Hill was not excused. 

Mr. RaRIDEN asked to be excused from voting on the grounds following : That the only evidence 
which has been laid before this House, orihat he had everseen. pertaining to the rights of theclaimants to 
the New Jersey seats, is the certificate of the Governor of New Jersey, with the seal affixed, certifying 


to the rlghtsof five gentlemen to the seats. Nothing has been laid before the House as evidence to impeach 
the certificate, or the right of those five gentlemen. Common rumor has impeached it on one hand, 
and ihe same common rumor sustained it. Five of the members of the committee of this House, in 
their report to this House, impeach ttie certificate of the Governor, and affirm the right ol five other 
gentlemen to the seats, upon evidence which they affirm was brought before them. Four others of 
the same committee vindicate the certificate of the Governor and re affirm the light of the first named 
gentlemen upon the same evidence ; and he could not decide between these conflicting claims and 
confl cting reports, and affirm the right of the now sitting members, in the absence of all evidence except 
the Governor’s certificate, which certifies the right of five others. 

Mr. R ariden was not excused. 

Mr. RIVES wished to make a proposal to the House. 

The CHAIR said it could be done only bv general consent. 

[L oud dissent. Cries of “ No, no, sit. down, not in order.”] 

Mr. RIVES endeavored to proceed, but his voice ,was drowned in the Babel-like dinof sounds. 

Mr. OGLE said he wished to vote on liis own ju Igment, and not on that of other men. The committee 
were evenly balanced, four against four, until, u week or two ago, Mr. P. F. Thomas, of IVd-, had been 
added. Mr. O. with all respect for that, gentleman, was not to be bound by his solitary vote in committee, 
nor by the report of any committee under Heaven. He must judge for himself. 

Mr, Ogle was not excused. 

Mr. W. COST JOHNSON asked to be excused. He thought the whole proceeding fraught with the 
most alarming evils, and likely to set a most pernicious precedent for the future. Whenever high party 
times occurred, this case would be called up as sanctioning the abuse of power. The rightsof a sover¬ 
eign and patriotic State wore involved, and, as a Stute Rights man, he never could yield his assent to 
such a proceeding. It was not only a violation of State rights, but an infringement on every principle of 
justice and every safeguard of freedom. 

Mr. Johnson was not excused. 

Mr. HAWES and Mr. TRIPLETT asked to be excused from voting on the resolution reported by 
the Committee of Elections, for the following reasons : 1st. They are not informed of the facts of the 
case. 2d. They have had no opportunity of gaining any information as to the facts of the case. 3d. 
That every usage of this House, so far as they know, is overturned and violated by the whole proceed¬ 
ings in the case. They state that the only knowledge they have had an opportunity of gaining of the 
facts of the case is from the reading at the Clerk’s table of the reports of five of the Committee of Elec¬ 
tions in support of the resolution, and four of the committee in opposition to the resolution, both of which 
reports are long, both of which take many and contradictory positions, both of which reports differ widely 
in facts and arguments,and both of which refer to testimony which they have neither seen nor had 
an opportunity of reading, hearing, or considering. That they consider it their duty, in sitting in judg¬ 
ment between the parties claiming seats in this House, that the following proceedings st.ould be ob¬ 
served, to wit: 1st. That- the evidence taken by the parties to support their respective claims should 
be read or printed, so as to afford a fair and reasonable opportunity to each member to understand it. 
2d. That the parlies should be heard at the bar of the House, by themselves or counsel, in such reason¬ 
able manner as to enable them to present the facts and arguments of their case, in consideration that 
they neither kuow the facts of the case,.nor have had an opportunity of knowing them, and that the entire 
proceeding violates all the forms, usages, and principles which should, in their judgment, be observed, 
they respectfully ask to he excused from voting. 

Mr. Hawes and Mr. Triplett were not. excused. 

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Tennessee, asked to be excused from voting on this question, for the following 
reasons: That two reporls have been made to-day, one by the majority atad the other by the minority 
of the Committee of Elections - five members agreeing to one report, and four agreeing to the other. 
One report declares that the five Administration members from New Jersey are elected; the other 
declares that the five Whig claimants, all or a part, are elected. The evidence upon which the re¬ 
ports are founded has not been published or printed, nor has it been read to this House. I have not. seen 
or heard the evidence, and cannot decide which set of claimants is entitled to seats. I understand that 
the claimants for seats wish to appear at. the bar, by thems* Ives or by counsel, and show their right to 
seats, but the previous question has been sustained by a majority, which cuts off the reading of the 
evidence and the right of the parties to appear in defence of their claim to seats. Acting now in a ju¬ 
dicial capacity, under the solemn obligation of an oath, I cannot do justice to my own conscience or to 
the parties concerned by giving my vote for or against the resolution now before the House. 

Mr. Campbell was not excused. 

Mr. FILLMORE appealed to his friends to prefer no more requests to be excused ; they were utterly 
vain. Let gentlemen complete their work, and then answer it to the nation. 

Mr. CAMPBELL, ofS. C., moved to adjourn ; but the House, by yeas and nays, refused the motion : 
Y eas 75, nays 107. 

The question wbb now, at length, obtained; and being pot upon agreeing to the report of the com¬ 
mittee, (which declares the members now silting to have been duly elected, and entitled to seats,) 
was decided as follows : 

YEAS—Messrs. Allen, Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Blackwell, Boyd, Aaron Y. Brown 
A. G. Brown, Burke, Wm. O. Butler, Bynum, John Campbell, Carr, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, Coles, Connor, 
Craig, Crary, Dana, Davee, John Davis, John W. Davis, Doan, Doig, Dromgoole, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fine, 
Fisher, Floyd, Fornance, Galbraith, Hammond, Hand, John Hastings, Hawkins, Hill, of N. C., Hillen, Holleman, 
Holmes, Hopkins, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, 
Keiin, Kemble. Leadbetter, Leonard, Lucas, McCulloh, McKay, Mallory, Marchand, Medill, Miller, Montanya, 
Montgomery, Samuel W. Morris, Newhard, Parish. Parmeuter, Parris, Payuter, Petrikin, Pickens, Premiss, 
Ramsey, Reynolds, Rhett, Rives, Edward Rogers, Samuels, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steenrod, Strong 
Sumter, Swearingen, Sweeny, Taylor, Francis Thomas, P. F Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vanderpoel, 
D. D. Wagener, Watterson, Wick, Jared W. Williams, Henry Williams, Worthington—102. 

NAYS—Messrs. Botts, Briggs, Carter, Chinn, Chittenden, Mark A. Cooper, Cranston, Filmore, Goggin, Green, 
Hawes, James, Mason, Morgan, Ogle, Osborne, Pope, Ridgway, Truman Smith, Toland. Thos. W. Williams, J. L. 
Williams—22. 

So the report was adopted. 

The House then, at half past 9 o’clock, adjourned. 


